4. Investors and Shareholders (who will have oversite?) Must disclose under GTC Directive

Ed,

In 2007, Glory [LLC / OSGC] allowed Nature’s Way [Tissue] Corporation to switch to be TTL, LLC. That wayArtley [Skenandore Jr.] et al [i.e. Ron Van Den Heuvel & Steven Peters] could not have personal assets attached for repayment as a corporation, but as an LLC could only have the business’ assets attached. [OSGC CEO] Kevin Cornelius et al plan to do the same with Oneida Energy, Inc. switch to Oneida Recycling [Solutions], LLC.

The Oneida Casino was made aware of the Oneida Eye’s unauthorized use of the Oneida Casino’s logo on a recent blog entry discussing the July 2017 election. The Oneida Casino’s logo is proprietary to the Oneida Casino. As permission was not provided for the Oneida Eye’s use of the Oneida Casino’s logo, the Oneida Casino respectfully requests that the logo be removed from the blog page and that the Oneida Eye refrain from any future use of the Oneida Casino’s logo on its blog page.

If the Oneida Casino’s logo is not removed from the Oneida Eye’s blog page within three (3) business days from the date of this letter, the Oneida Casino may consider legal enforcement of its request for removal.

3. The [Oneida Indian Nation of New York] sues the Department[of the Interior] under the Administrative Procedure Act to overturn a series of final agency actions taken during the previous administration. By those actions, the United States first gave federal approval to and then federally recognized the change of name of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin (“the Wisconsin tribe”) to Oneida Nation, causing confusion with
and damaging[Oneida Indian Nation of NY]. The last of the challenged agency actions – the Department’s decision to change the Wisconsin tribe’s federally recognized name that is published in the Federal Register in the official list of federally recognized tribes – appears to have been approved by a Department official who was a member of and a former attorney for that Wisconsin tribe who thus had a disqualifying conflict of interest….

5. As a result of the Department’s approval and recognition actions,the Wisconsin tribe is now claiming legal rights in the Oneida Nation name. The Wisconsin tribe also is insisting that [Oneida Indian Nation of NY] has lost trademark rights in the Oneida Nation name and more generally has now lost the right even to refer to itself as the Oneida Nation, a name by which the[Oneida Indian Nation of NY] has been known.…

7. The Department decided, without regard to any other facts, to automatically accept – for purposes of federal law and federal recognition – the decision of the Wisconsin tribe to change its name. By abdicating its duty to make an independent federal decision before federally approving and recognizing the name change, the Department entirely yielded federal decision-making responsibility to the Wisconsin tribe. …

10. Unless the Department’s actions are set aside, the potential for damage and unfairness to Indian tribes – and chaos – is enormous. Many tribes share common histories and have similar names and now are susceptible to the same misappropriation of identity that the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York] has suffered. …

C. Previous Efforts of the Wisconsin Tribe to Pass Itself Off in New York as the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York]

26. Beginning in the 1990s, the Wisconsin tribe sought to interfere in [Oneida Indian Nation of New York’s] affairs and to claim [OINNY]’s rights. For example, the Wisconsin tribe claimed an interest in revenues from the [Oneida Indian Nation of NY]’scasino in New York, claimed rights in the [Oneida Indian Nation of NY]’s reservation in New York, and asserted the power to settle the [Oneida Indian Nation of NY]’s land claim against the State of New York (then pending in the Northern District of New York).

27. The Wisconsin tribe also formed an entity that it named the “Oneida Preservation Committee,” which was named and acted to materially mislead the public into believing it was [an Oneida Indian Nation of NY] entity working in New York on behalf of the [OINNY]. The Committee was headed by a Wisconsin tribal official.

28. By confusing the public, causing it to believe that the Committee was the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York], and then intensifying local hostility to [OINNY] by threatening the [Oneida Nation of New York]’s non-Indian neighbors with the loss of their lands, the Wisconsin tribe intended for the Committee to pressure [OINNY] to settle its land claim case. The Committee flooded the area in and around the Oneida reservation in central New York with adversarial mailings and radio ads, knowing that references to Oneida, the Nation and Oneida Nation would be universally understood to refer to the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York]. Specifically, the Committee:

a. used the tribal name “Oneida,” omitting any Wisconsin reference;

b. falsely stated in writing that “[t]he Oneida Preservation Committee is charged by the [Oneida Indian Nation of NY] with working out a settlement that will not displace current residents”;

c. used stationery with a logo that mimicked the [Oneida Indian Nation of NY] logo;

d. used stationery with “New York” printed on it and used a New York return address and a New York postmark on mailings; and

e. stated in mailings that the committee spoke for “the Oneidas,” “the Oneida people” and “the people of the Oneida Nation.”

29. After a mid-1994 mailing, the [Oneida Indian Nation of NY] filed suit tostop the impersonation.

30. The Committee settled by agreeing to a “JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT CONSENT ORDER” that the court entered. The order applied to the Committee, its chair and “all other persons acting under them or on their behalf” and requires them, among other things, to use the following disclaimer in future documents and radio advertisements: “The Oneida Preservation Committee is not affiliated with or approved by the Oneida Indian Nation of New York.” The order required the disclaimer on any document or radio advertisement using the terms: “Oneida Nation,” “Oneida Indian Nation,” “Oneida Preservation Committee,” “the Oneida People,” “the Oneidas,” “the people of the Oneida Nation” and “the Oneida Indians.”

D. The Wisconsin Tribe’s Subsequent Strategy to Misappropriate and Assume the Oneida Nation Name Nationally

31. More recently, the Wisconsin tribe sought to misappropriate the historic Oneida Nation name and identity and to be something other than the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin. Misappropriating the historic Oneida Nation name and eliminating any reference to Wisconsin is intended to convey the false message that the Oneida Nation actually left New York and now resides in Wisconsin and that the [Oneida Indian Nation of NY] on its reservation in New York is an offshoot of a true Oneida Nation that is located in Wisconsin. It also confuses the public and siphons away the goodwill that the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York] has created in its business and governmental relations.

32. The Wisconsin tribe wanted a federal imprimatur to be placed on the new name and to have the United States change the name by which the United States officially recognizes the Wisconsin tribe.

33. To that end, on November 10, 2010, the Wisconsin tribe’s government passed a resolution requesting that the Secretary of the Interior conduct a Secretarial election in which the tribe’s members could vote to amend the tribe’s constitution in several ways, including changing the tribal name from “Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin” to “Oneida Nation.” A Secretarial election is a federal election conducted by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to federal regulations set forth in 25 C.F.R. Part 81. See 25 U.S.C. § 5123 (governs Secretarial approval of amendment of tribal constitutions).

34. By letter dated January 19, 2011, the Wisconsin tribe submitted the resolution to the Midwest Regional Office of the BIA and sought a decision by the Department to conduct a Secretarial election regarding the name change.

46. The Department appears to have acted under the direction of and notwithstanding the conflict of interest of the Acting Assistant Secretary. The Federal Register indicates that the revised list was published by or under the authority of “Lawrence S. Roberts, Acting Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs.” 81 Fed. Reg. 26826 (May 4, 2016) …(bold and italics omitted); see 82 Fe3d. Reg. 4915, 4917 (Jan. 17, 2017) (most recent published list, under Mr. Roberts’ name, republishing Wisconsin tribe’s changed name). In 2016, the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York / OINNY], by counsel, made FOIA requests to the Department in Washington, D.C. for documents regarding Mr. Roberts’ recusal from decisions regarding the May 4, 2016 list. The Department neither produced documents nor indicated that it had no responsive documents.

47. Mr. [Larry] Roberts, who served during the prior administration and left the Department on January 20, 2017, could not be a neutral decision-maker. He is a member of the Wisconsin tribe, which had included Mr. Roberts’ name in a list provided to the Department in connection with the name-change election, titled “Final List of Registered Voters for the May 2, 2015 Secretarial Election Amending the Constitution and Bylaws of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin.” As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts had previously represented his tribe and had reason to believe he would continue to do so after leaving government service and returning to private practice. His interests could be substantially affected by the decision to change or not to change the name by which the United States officially recognizes his tribe, and his impartiality in the matter would reasonably be questioned.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Oneida Indian Nation [of New York] prays for entry of judgment:

1. Declaring to be unlawful and setting aside the Acting Assistant Secretary’s decision to list the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin as “Oneida Nation” in the May 4, 2016, Federal Register list of federally recognized Indian tribes and in subsequent lists;

2. Declaring to be unlawful and setting aside the Midwest Region’s earlier decisions to permit and approve the Wisconsin tribe’s constitutional name-change amendment;

3. Enjoining the Department from approving “Oneida Nation” as the name of the Wisconsin tribe or from listing that tribe as “Oneida Nation” in the official list published by the Department in the Federal Register;

4. Remanding the foregoing matters to the Department for proper administrative consideration, if the Court determines that the agency’s decisions are invalid only for reasons of lack of notice, process, reasoned explanation or absence of a neutral decision-maker; and

5. Awarding the Oneida Indian Nation [of New York] such other and further relief to which it may be entitled at law or in equity or as may otherwise be just and proper.

The complaint also alleges that Woodside followed H&K’s recommendation to hire [Midwest]Engineering Services[Inc.] and Environmental Systems Technology & Research (ESTR) to design and install a wastewater treatment system to meet state Department of Natural Resources’ permit requirements.

The suit claims that neither company disclosed that ESTR planned to use a proprietary wastewater system, invented and patented by an ESTR principal, Gaylen LaCrosse, that later failed to meet DNR requirements.

The proprietary system had no track record of approval by state regulators for the planned application and was more expensive than other systems already backed and recommended by the DNR, the complaint alleges.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the companies attempted to hide that the proposed wastewater system had run afoul of DNR regulators and that H&K later incorrectly claimed that the [DNR] had issued the needed permit and that the company had also obtained related loans and grants.

The employee MES assigned to the project, Jeffrey Fischer, had previously surrendered his state license to work as a professional geologist after felony fraud convictions related to the state’s Petroleum Environmental Cleanup-up Fund and had no expertise in wastewater systems, the suit claims.

The suit also claims that H&K was negligent in not disclosing that a company executive, Terry Gaouette, had pleaded guilty to falsifying financial records of the Milwaukee Public Museum when he served as a top museum executive.

Ron “Tehassi” Hill was elected to serve as Chairman of the Oneida Nation [of Wisconsin / ONWI] for the next three years.

Hill replaces Tina Danforth, who chose not to run this term.

[NOTE:Cristina Danforth was elected to theOneida Gaming Commission / OGC, the legal counsel for which isAtty. William Cornelius, former President & Chair ofOneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC and Chair of OSGC-subsidiary Oneida Energy, Inc.

The OGC oversees theONEIDA NATION of WI-owned ONEIDA CASINO – not to be confused with the New York casinos of the ONEIDA INDIAN NATION of NY – and the OGC must approve all operational contracts entered into by the ONWI ONEIDA CASINO.

OSGC supposedly ‘leases’ buildings to the ONWI ONEIDA CASINO, including the business offices of the OGC itself…

yet the ONWI ONEIDA CASINO pays for capital improvements to the buildings supposedly ‘owned’ by OSGC, for which Oneida Gaming ManagerLouise King Cornelius’ nephew – OBC-appointed OSGC Managing AgentPete King III of King Solutions, LLC– receives a salary to ‘oversee.’]

Approximately 1600 enrolled Oneida citizens participated in the election.

There are 10 days for the election to be challenged, the present Oneida Business Committee is expected to accept the election results on August 9, 2017.

The newly elected Oneida Business Committee will be sworn in during an inauguration ceremony on August 10th [2017].

Also elected to Vice Chairman is Brandon Yellowbird Stevens, who ran for this seat for the first time but has served several terms as a councilman.

Re-elected for the Treasurer was Trish King.

Debra Powless was elected to serve as Secretary.

Re-elected to the Council is Jenny Webster and David Jordan.

Newly elected council members are Kirby Metoxen, Daniel King-Guzman and Ernie Stevens III.

The entire Business Committee is the governing board of the Oneida Nation [of Wisconsin] and will serve for three year terms.

A decade of violence perpetrated by a 20-year-old man preceded his slaying of a couple in the town of Oneida [Wisconsin] in September, a judge said at the man’s sentencing Monday afternoon.

Citing a pre-sentence report, Outagamie County Judge Mark McGinnis saidVance Reed had stabbed his mother 11 years ago, threatened to kill people in the past and at one point started questioning his school principal about what it feels like to kill someone.

“Seems like it’s been 10 years in the making,” McGinnis said of Reed’s brutal stabbing of Harry Brown Bear, 77, and his wife, Lorraine Brown Bear, 67, in the couple’s home. …

McGinnis pressed Reed on what pain he thought he had caused in the community and how others could know that Reed was truly sorry. The judge focused particularly on Reed’s use of the word “taken” instead of “killed” when describing the Brown Bears’ violent deaths.

“In September last year, for whatever reason, you killed — and I’m not going to substitute any word for it — you brutally killed two older, innocent people,” McGinnis said in handing down his sentence.

These were senseless acts that McGinnis said he couldn’t wrap his head around. Usually, there’s some conflict that precedes a homicide, he said.

In this case, there’s nothing.

“What makes sense, if any of this does, is that you were the guy who did it,” McGinnis told Reed. …

The murders terrorized the Oneida community, especially in the time between the homicides and Reed’s arrest, Outagamie County District Attorney Carrie Schneider said. They wondered whether the murderer was still around — and what they might do next.

Oneida Eye has received multiple reports that Oneida Nation in Wisconsin members, including Oneida Nation of WI High School Principal Artley Skenandore Jr., have made repeated – sometimes daily – requests to the Oneida Business Committee, the Oneida Housing Authority, and the Oneida Police Dept. (where Artley’s wifeOPD Lieutenant Lisa Drew-Skenandore works) to gain access to the murder scene in order to take possession of Harry & Lorraine Brown Bears’ belongings, claiming that they had been ‘promised’ certain items by the Brown Bears.

The defense memorandum in support of the motion to sever counts raises generic concerns over possible jury confusion, evidentiary overlap, and evidence admissible on some counts but not others. None of the defense arguments go beyond mere allegations to actually establish any reason to conclude that prejudice will necessarily result from one trial of all the counts in this indictment.

Without any analysis of the evidence, defendant Van Den Heuvel’s memorandum simply states that evidence of one of the two schemes alleged would not be admissible to prove the other scheme in separate trials. That may not necessarily be correct. On the face of the indictment, both schemes involve violations of the same statutes, allegations that Mr. Van Den Heuvel used others as straw borrowers to obtain loans for Mr. Van Den Heuvel and his business entities, and allegations that collateral controlled by Mr. Van Den Heuvel was used as security for the loans. With these points in mind, the United States does not concede that evidence of the one scheme could not be used to prove motive, intent, plan, absence of mistake, or lack of accident with regard to the other scheme…

The defense also asserts that the jury might be confused between schemes and convict the defendant in one scheme based on evidence of the other. That is theoretically possible but unlikely here because the charges are relatively simple (lying to get money) and they involve separate loans from separate financial institutions. When the evidence of separate counts is relatively short and simple and there is no reason established for concluding that the jury could not keep the evidence relevant to each count separate, there is no basis to sever counts under Rule 14(a).

According to a July 13, 2017 ‘Update Oneida’ Email to Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI Employees from Phil Wisneski in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs & Communications / OIAC:

On July 12, 2017 the Election Board conducted a recount of the votes cast for the positions of Business Committee Secretary and Judiciary – Appellate Court Judge. The recounts were conducted pursuant to Section 102.11 Section C of the Election Law which requires a manual recount to be completed upon request of a candidate (Section 102.11-7). The recounts were observed by an Attorney from the Law Office and an Oneida Police Officer to ensure proper procedure was followed.

The General Election results are tentative until all recounts have been completed. Per Election Law 2.11-5. A candidate may request the Election Board to complete a recount, provided the margin between the requesting candidate’s vote total and vote total for the unofficial winner was within two percent (2%) of the total votes for the office being sought or twenty (20) votes, whichever is greater. A candidate requests a recount by hand delivering a written request to the office of the [OBC] Secretary, or noticed designated agent, within five (5) business days after the election. Requests shall be limited to one (1) request per candidate.

Ballots of Milwaukee polling location were put through the AccuVote Tabulator machine and one ballot was spoiled due to an over vote in the Business Committee Council Members area. The manual recount of all the ballots cast in the 2017 General Election resulted in a change to the tentative results shown below.

*The outcome of the recount shows the Secretary winner has now changed.

*The vote numbers for Appellate Judge have changed but outcome remains the same.

These results continue to be tentative until the time period to request a recount or to challenge the Election results has expired and the results are certified by the Oneida BusinessCommittee.

The Oneida Business Committee received a request from [Eric Decator / Generation Clean Fuels / Arland Clean Fuels / GCF / ACF] to consider settlement. The complaint alleges $400 million in damages; the settlement offer was $9 million. We discussed this settlement in Executive Session on August 26, 2015, and rejected this offer. We believe that the Tribe has not damaged ACF in any way and was not a party to the contract. As a result, the settlement offer is too high to be considered. We do not make a counter-offer as we continue to believe that the Tribe will prevail in this matter. However, if a settlement offer is presented which we think fairly represents the risk and cost of continuing versus concluding this matter, we have committed to bringing that to the General Tribal Council for action.

BUT THAT’S OBVIOUSLY NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

A SECRET MULTIMILLION DOLLAR ‘SETTLEMENT’ WAS PAID…

WHICH ACTUALLY SEEMS MORE LIKE AN EXTORTION PAYMENT.

GTC MEMBERS HAVE BEEN TOLD VARIOUS VERSIONS OF EVENTS.

When Oneida Eye Publisher LEAH SUE DODGE inquired at the July 17, 2017 GTC Semi-Annual Meeting about what really happened, both the OBC and their attorney – OLO Chief Counsel Jo Anne House (who is oddly also GTC Parliamentarian) refused to answer for the record…

(a) exactly when did the
OBC retroactively approve
the unauthorized & costlyusurption of GTC’s authority& violation of GTC’s rights byOSGC ‘Managing Agent’Pete King III and his sham
front King Solutions LLC?

and…

(b) exactly where
did the OBC & OSGC
supposedly obtain

SECRETMULTIMILLIONSto play with for whatlooks & smells like
just another state &
federally funded
intentional tort‘plastics-to-oil’‘waste-to-energy’
‘green investment’white-collar extortion

For the reasons stated above,CH2E [Nevada LLC] respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and enter judgment in CH2E’s favor and against ACTI on: (1) CH2E’s claim for breach of contract, with damages in the amount of $6,636,000.00; (2) ACTI’s counterclaim for breach of contract; and (3) ACTI’s counterclaim for unjust enrichment.

McKelvy’s daughters have a company,Contact TRACS, which provides marketing software for small businesses. McKelvy’s daughters plan to hold seminars to present their services to small businesses outside COLORADO beginning in September 2017. McKelvy seeks permission to travel outside COLORADO to assist his daughters in presenting Contact TRACS’ services to small businesses. McKelvy will inform Pretrial Services of his travel plans prior to leavingCOLORADO.

Seven men have been named in a federal indictment accusing them of involvement in a drug ring that sold large quantities of methamphetamine in Green Bay. …

[Two are accused] of kidnapping, saying they confined and held someone for retaliation and used a firearm to threaten him. The press release provides no details of those charges, but court records indicate they held and beat a man whom they suspected of setting up one of their group and ripping him off at theOneida Casino earlier this spring.

The case was investigated by the Brown County Drug Task Force, the North Central High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force, the Phoenix, Ariz., branch of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, the Scottsdale Police Department, and the Phoenix and Green Bay Divisions of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel R. Humble.

10. Since confirmation of the Debtor’s Plan, both the Debtor and Little Rapids have represented that all or substantially all of the Debtor’s personal property located in the Warehouse has been surrendered to Little Rapids and subsequently transferred to a third party (see Docket 255, ¶7).

11. WEDC has attempted for months to obtain particulars regarding the alleged surrender, both from counsel [of] the Debtor and Little Rapids, and both in writing and verbally; in response, WEDC has received only partial information.

2. The Debtor claimed in its Motion to Modify the Revised Third Amended Plan that “A contract has been entered into for the reacquisition of all of the equipment” which had allegedly been previously been abandoned (Docket 255, ¶7) (emphasis added). Yet as of the time of the filing of this Objection, not all of the Debtor’s property has been removed from Little Rapids’ warehouse …

[4]c. Little Rapids’ Motion makes a vague reference to potentially “privileged or other protected matters” which “may” require disclosure, but fails to state what those possibly could be, particularly if they merely involve a third-party salvage dealer [Tony Hayes,Hayes Salvage] …

On July 19, 2017 the Election Board conducted a recount of the votes cast for the Gaming Commission positions and on July 20th for the positions of Business Committee Secretary and Business Committee Council Member. The Board continued with the recount process on July 21st. The recounts were conducted pursuant to Section 102.11 Section C of the Election Law which requires a manual recount to be completed upon request of a candidate (Section 102.11-7). The recounts were observed by an Attorney from the Law Office and an Oneida Police Officer to ensure proper procedure was followed. The manual recount of all the ballots cast in the 2017 General Election results shown below:

*The outcome of the recount of Gaming Commission has now resulted in a tie:

Section B. Tie 102.11-3. In the event of a tie for any office, and where the breaking of a tie is necessary to determine the outcome of an election, the Election Board shall conduct an automatic recount of the votes for each candidate receiving the same number of votes. Any recount conducted shall be the only recount allowed for the tied candidates. 102.11-4. For Business Committee positions, a run-off election between the candidates with the same number of votes shall be held if there remains a tie after the recount. Said run-off election shall be held within twenty one (21) calendar days after the recount. For all other positions, if there remains a tie after the recount, the Election Board shall decide the winner of the tied positions at least two (2) business days after, but no more than five (5) business days after the recount through a lot drawing, which shall be open to the public. (a) The Election Board shall notify each of the tied candidates and the public of the date, time, and place of the drawing at least one (1) business day before the drawing. Notice to the tied candidates shall be in writing. Notice to the public shall be posted by the Election Board in the prominent locations. (b) On the date and at the time and place the drawing was noticed, the Election Board Chairperson shall clearly write the name of each tied candidate on separate pieces of paper in front of any witnesses present. The pieces of paper shall be the same, or approximately the same, color, size, and type. The papers shall be folded in half and placed in a container selected by the Election Board Chairperson. (c) The Election Board Chairperson shall designate an uninterested party to draw a name from the container. The candidate whose name is drawn from the container first shall be declared the winner. An Election Board member other than the Chairperson shall remove the remaining pieces of paper from the container and show them to the witnesses present.

[Stephen Smith]: I don’t know, but it wasn’t going to be my personal guarantee, though. That was really where that started, um, is um, the, the – When we approached the scrap dealer [TONY HAYES], he wanted a personal guarantee and I was not about to do that for this.I’ve got enough, probably way too much money in this project already and I wasn’t going to guarantee performance.

[Attorney BRIAN THILL of Murphy Desmond S.C. for WEDC]: Is there an arrangement between PCDI and Green Box for the purchase of the equipment?

[Steven Smith]: I have… Yes, I have complete control of that So, there’s no – there’s no contractual arrangement. I have the ability to sell that, uh, equipment, and, um, at – at whatever points I deem appropriate for whatever amounts I deem appropriate.

[Atty. Thill]: How do you know you have that authority?

[Stephen Smith]: It’s in the operating agreement of the company.

[Atty. Thill]: When’s the last time you saw that document?

[Stephen Smith]: Oh, in the last month or two? It’s been in place – it’s been in place for 2 (two) years.

[Atty. Thill]: Do you trust Ron Van Den Heuvel?

[Laughter & snickering]

[Atty. Thill]: So, what would stop Ron Van Den Heuvel from entering into some sort of amended agreement with Tony Hayes. He’s already signed one agreement, right?

[Stephen Smith]: Because he needs to get my approval to do so. It’s very well documented.

[Atty. Thill]: But, you yourself said you don’t –I believe the word was that Tony Hayes himself was‘notorious.’ Is that accurate?

[Stephen Smith]: No, I didn’t say that.

[Atty. Thill]: Ok, I think your lawyer said that. Would you agree with your –

[Stephen Smith]: No, no. That’s not – I didn’t say I don’t have idea who he is. We looked into it carefully. I’ve never met him. I’ve – um, we – I was fully aware of the transaction; I approved the transaction. Um, and, but your – your question is, “Do I know him?” No. “Is he ‘notorious’?” I don’t know. That’s all opinion.

A well-founded “opinion,” as it turns out:

TONY HAYES filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on July 23, 2013 [U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 13-29932-svk, Chapter 7, Tony Hayes aka Hayes Salvage]. Although the Order Discharging Debtor(s) was originally filed on October 28, 2013, it was later vacated on November 12, 2015 and the case closed on September 14, 2016.

NOW COMES Paul G. Swanson, the Plaintiff and Chapter 7 Trustee, and respectfully represents as follows:

1. On July 23, 2013, the above named Debtor [Tony Hayes] filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7, Title 11 of the United States Code. The Debtor was granted a discharge herein on October 28,2013. The case is still open and the trustee is administering assets of the estate.

2. On July 23, 2013, the Debtor [Tony Hayes] filed his bankruptcy Schedules in this case listing all of his assets and all of his liabilities.

3. On August 22, 2013, the Debtor attended the first Meeting of Creditors wherein he testified under oath that he had listed all of his assets and that his Schedules were true and complete.

4. Among those assets listed are 100% interest in Sturgeon Bay Iron & Scrap Metal, LLC, Full Circle Recycling, LLC, and AAAAA Sanitation, LLC [for which the Registered Agent is Angela Hayes, Tony’s ex-wife]. The Trustee has, since he was appointed to the case, taken possession of the assets of the LLCs for the benefit of creditors as it appears there is substantial equity in the same even though the Debtor did not list a value but rather scheduled them as “indeterminate”.

5. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(1) or (2), the Trustee may request revocation of the discharge previously granted.

6. The Trustee is in the process of selling the assets of the Debtor’s wholly-owned LLC, Sturgeon Bay Iron & Scrap Metal, LLC and, as such, has taken possession of all the assets of that entity. In the course of the investigation by the Trustee and his counsel, certain facts have been revealed concerning missing assets from that entity.

7. Specifically, the entity had an interest in a Caterpillar mini excavator, a Lowboy semi trailer and approximately 20 metal dumpsters for the collection of scrap metal.

8. Through the investigation, it was determined that the Debtor [Tony Hayes] was in possession, personally, of these assets. Despite repeated demands upon the Debtor and his counsel for the return of the assets, the Debtor has failed to do so for no justifiable excuse. Such assets are rightfully the property of the LLC which is property of the estate. Such assets have a significant value.

9. Additionally, during the investigation it was also determined that the Debtor is the title owner to a 1996 Peterbilt semi tractor as the Trustee’s counsel observed him driving the same. Once again, despite repeated demands to turn over the semi tractor, the Debtor [Tony Hayes] hasfailed to do the same.

10. The 1996 Peterbilt semi tractor has, according to the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles, been titled in the Debtor’s name for years. The Debtor omitted the Peterbilt semi tractor from his schedules. The Peterbilt semi tractor has significant value.

11. Upon information and belief, after the date of the filing of the Petition and while the Debtor was still operating one or more of his LLCs, the entities took in substantial amounts of money, a significant amount of which is not accounted for. Trustee believes that the Debtor is withholding funds which are actually property of either Sturgeon Bay Iron & Scrap Metal, LLC or Full Circle Recycling, LLC, which rightfully belong to those LLCs, both of which are property of the state.

12. The Trustee alleges that the Debtor acquired property that is property of the estate, to wit, property of one of his LLCs and, despite repeated demands to do so, has failed to deliver or surrender of such property to the Trustee.

13. The Trustee has also ascertained that the Debtor materially misrepresented the value of his interest in Sturgeon Bay Iron & Scrap Metal, LLC to the Trustee when he knew that the business and its assets had a substantial value to the estate. The Trustee [ATTY. PAUL SWANSON] alleges that this representation or omission rises to the level of fraud and that the Debtor obtained his discharge through such fraud, contrary to 11 U.S.C. § 727 (d)(1).

14. The intentional undervaluation of substantial assets of the Debtor, to wit, his interest in his LLCs, in his Schedules constitutes fraud in fact as does the failure to disclose his ownership interest in a 1996 Peterbilt semi tractor.

15. Such fraud would have prevented the discharge had it been known and timely brought to the attention of the Court.

16. The Trustee did not know of the fraud until approximately July 2014, after the discharge was granted to the Debtor.

17. The Trustee asserts that this is a core proceeding in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 7008.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff requests the following relief:

A. The discharge of the above-named debtor berevoked.

B. That the Debtor be ordered to account for all property in his hands that belongs to Sturgeon Bay Iron & Scrap Metal, LLC or any one of his LLCs and turn the same over to the Trustee for liquidation for the benefit of creditors of this estate.

C. For whatever further relief the Court deems equitable under the circumstances.

07/26/17 : According to an Email by the ONWI Communications Dept.:

The results of the Oneida Gaming Commission in the 2017 General Election recount resulted in a tie between [exiting OBC Chair] Cristina Danforth and [exiting OBC Vice-Chair] Melinda Danforth.

The Election Board conducted a lot drawing for a tie within the [ONWI] Gaming Commission which had resulted from a requested recount. The lot drawing took place at noon on July 26, 2017, pursuant to the Election Law Section 102.11-4, and the winner of the lot drawing is Cristina “Tina” Danforth.

The reorganization would roll up De Pere businessman Ron Van Den Heuvel’s web of companies into a new company that would secure the equipment, technology and money needed to operate a system that would recycle waste that typically ends up in landfills into reusable products.

“Principals of the debtor, despite using their best efforts, were unable to raise the funds contemplated which were, in effect, the financing necessary to bridge the gap between confirmation of the plan and the roll up contemplated under the plan,” the motion reads.

GlenArbor plans to provide updated engineering reports, business plans and appraisals to reassure potential investors that the business is sound. It said even creditors understand failure to secure investors would mean no one gets paid.

“If the roll up does not come to fruition, it is unlikely that the various claims will be paid to any extent, if at all,” the motion states. “The investment bank’s study of the business plan and operations will provide a basis for potential investors to reasonably assess whether to invest in the project.”

GlenArbor has spearheaded the reorganization effort since Van Den Heuvel sought protection from creditors in April 2016. [Ron]Van Den Heuvel would retain an ownership stake in the revived venture, but he would not be involved in the company’s management.

When Green Box filed for bankruptcy, Van Den Heuvel listed less than $50,000 in assets and more than $10 million in debt. The company had been the subject of a string of lawsuits from unpaid creditors, including the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. [WEDC].

The bulk of the $176 million sought to fund the new company would build a new sorting facility, expand existing operations, connect various parts of the operation, pay off creditors and ramp up operations.

If financing can be secured, the new company has agreed to pay:

» $605,000 in delinquent property, payroll and unemployment taxes Green Box owed to county, state and federal agencies.

» $13.1 million to secured claimants owed a total of $24.3 million, and

8. Through documents and information provided by Araujo and his attorneys, your affiant became aware that theWISCONSIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION[WEDC], a public/private entity operated in part by the State of Wisconsin, was a potential victim of fraudulent representation made by RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL in order to obtain a loan from the WEDC for approximately$1.3 Million. Your affiant made a request from the WEDC and obtained all of WEDC’s documentation of the loan made to [RVDH] and [GBNAGB].

9. Your affiant is aware, through documents provided by [WEDC] and record and documents contained on a thumb drive provided by Guy LoCascio, a former contract accountant for [GBNAGB] and [RVDH], that [Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel]…doing business as Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC … made representations to [WEDC] in order to receive funds from them, and once funds were received, [RVDH] paid personal debts with the money.

10. Through your affiant’s investigation thus far, it has been found that Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, doing business as Green Box NA Green Bay LLC, did supply fraudulent information in his application for funding from WEDC, based on your affiant’s review of the file provided by WEDC which contained documents and statements, the document provided by Araujo’s attorneys [GODFREY & KAHN] from Brown County cases 13CV463 and 15CV474 and documents contained on the thumb drive provided by Guy LoCascio. …

11. Your affiant found that [RVDH], doing business as [GREEN BOX NA GREEN BAY], failed to provide documentation, as promised, to WEDC, which would constitute proof of the required capital contributions of $629,000 from a related entity, E.A.R.T.H. … and $5,500,000 from VHC, Inc., and made material misrepresentations to WEDC about actually receiving the money as backing, despite the fact that money was never received. In addition, [RVDH] never listed VHC, Inc., which is comprised primarily of Van Den Heuvel family members, as having any ownership in [GBNAGB], despite the fact that [RVDH] represented to WEDC that VHC, Inc., contributed $5,500,000 of operating capital. …

On September 2, 2015, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a ten-count indictment charging TROY WRAGG, AMANDA KNORR, and WAYDE MCKELVY with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud…, seven counts of wire fraud…, 1 count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud…, and one count of securities fraud…. The charges in the indictment stem from the defendants’ participation in the Mantria Ponzi scheme which collapsed in November 2009 when the SEC filed a motion for a temporary restraining order with the United States District Court in COLORADO.

In his motion, defendant MCKELVY requests the Court to order the government to produce all the e-mails of certain government witnesses. Quite frankly, the government’s desire to obtain these e-mails probably surpasses defense counsel’s desire to obtain these e-mails, because the government believes that these e-mails contain a significant amount of inculpatory evidence. Unfortunately, the government simply does not have and cannot obtain the e-mails requested by defense counsel. All e-mails in the government’s possession have been turned over in discovery. For this reason, the defendant’s motion must be denied.

In order to understand why the government does not have possession of these e-mails, it is necessary to review the investigative process. E-mails are typically obtained in a criminal investigation through the use of a search warrant. The first two government agencies to investigate Mantria were the COLORADODivision of Securities and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Because the SEC was able to quickly obtain a temporary injunction and, shortly thereafter, a permanent injunction, the SEC’s investigation of Mantria was abbreviated. Thus, the SEC did not obtain any of the e-mails at issue here. The FBI in Denver[COLORADO] then began a limited investigation of Mantria. This investigation was hampered by the untimely death of the assigned Assistant United States Attorney and the retirement of the FBI case agent. As a result, the FBI in Denver did not obtain the e-mails at issue here. In late 2014, the criminal investigation was transferred to the FBI in Philadelphia. By this point, five years after Mantria collapsed, the government simply could not obtain the necessary search warrants to seize the e-mails at issue here due to the lapse in time, even though there is no question that these e-mails would contain a significant amount of incriminating evidence. Consequently, the government does not have the e-mails requested by the defendant.

The fact that Mantria Financial might have eventually declared bankruptcy at some indefinite point in the future is irrelevant. The defendant is essentially arguing that he cannot be convicted of murder because his victim would have eventually died of natural causes at some indefinite point in the future. Many legitimate banks suffer financial problems, that does not mean they are not banks.Here, there is no question that the defendant’s fraud scheme “affected” Mantria Financial as defined by the statute.

This action arises out of a business dispute. … Plaintiff purchased specialized equipment from [Abdul Latif Mahjoob & American Combustion Technologies Inc. / ACTI], which allegedlydid not perform as promised. …

The large quantity of materials seized reflects not officer misconduct, but rather the pervasive, complex, and long-term nature of the defendants’fraudulent activities. …

This case arose from federal investigations regarding the defendants pursuing two schemes to defraud banks by obtaining loans through straw borrowers. Separately, the BCSO was investigating Ronald Van Den Heuvel for defrauding investors and lenders by promoting his Green Box businesses. Federal agencies also subsequently began investigating Ronald Van Den Heuvel’sGreen Box scheme; that investigation is ongoing and has not led to chargesyet. …

[NOTE: STRAW BORROWERS#5 &#6 are former Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. Vice-PresidentDEBRA STARY, BILL BAIN’s sister-in-law whom co-conspirator Paul Piikkila said in his JULY 1, 2016 PLEA AGREEMENT had been “browbeat” by Ron into taking that position at the Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC-partner company; the other ‘straw borrower’ is Kelly Van Den Heuvel-owned ‘company’ KYHKJG, LLC which Julie Gumban says she was told she was “investing in.”]

Kelly Van Den Heuvel is expressly alleged to be involved with three of those loans. … Counts 2 through 13 charge Ronald Van Den Heuvel with specific executions of the scheme to defraud and false statements regarding the Horicon Bank loans. Kelly Van Den Heuvel is also charged in Counts 10 and 11 regarding the loan to her live-in nanny [Philippine-nationalJulie Gumban].

The Horicon Bank fraud scheme was investigated principally by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC’s Division of Risk Management and Supervision received a complaint from Horicon Bank about Piikkila in 2010. The FDIC conducted an administrative investigation that collected the key evidence for each of the nine loans in the Horicon Bank fraud. In 2013, the FDIC imposed an administrative sanction on Piikkila and barred him from further participation in financial institutions.

In 2013, the U.S. Attorney’s Office received a referral from the FDIC Office of Inspector General (OIG) and opened a grand jury inquiry into potential criminal charges related to the Horicon Bank fraud. The FBI also assigned a case agent to assist this investigation. The investigation obtained received the evidence collected in the FDIC’s administrative action against Piikkila as well as additional materials from Horicon Bank and other sources.

In April 2015, Piikkila provided the investigators with an extensive statement regarding the Horicon Bank fraud, corroborating the documents and statements from Horicon Bank regarding each of the loans in the indictment. Representatives from the Brown County District Attorney’s Office attended Piikkila’s interview because Piikkila worked for Van Den Heuvel after Horicon Bank fired Piikkila, and thus, Piikkila had information relevant to the BCSO’s Green Box investigation. FDIC Special Agent Sara Hager is expected to testify that the investigation into the Horicon Bank fraud was almost complete before July 2015 when the BCSO executed its search warrants for its separate investigation.

The Horicon Bank fraud investigation continued through 2015 and into early 2016, interviewing additional witnesses and obtaining additional documents from financial institutions that received proceeds from the loans. In November 2015, FDIC Special Agent Sara Hager obtained copies of certain materials that the BCSO had seized during the July 2015 search warrant. On April 19, 2016, the case was presented to the grand jury, which returned the initial indictment charging the Horicon Bank fraud counts (1-13). …

Counts 14 through 19 of the indictment charge Ronald Van Den Heuvel with pursuing a scheme to defraud three other financial institutions from June 10, 2013 through July 2, 2013. Ronald Van Den Heuvel arranged to have his employee [Patrick Hoffman, Ron’s son-in-law via daughter Kristie Hoffman] seek loans in his name that would be for Van Den Heuvel’s benefit. To make [Patrick Hoffman] appear credit-worthy, Ronald Van Den Heuvel gave [Patrick Hoffman] pay stubs with inflated wages and titled two Cadillac Escalades in [Patrick Hoffman]’s name even though [Patrick Hoffman] did not have control or custody of the vehicles. At Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s direction, [Patrick Hoffman] applied for loans from Community First Credit Union, Nicolet National Bank, and Pioneer Credit Union. All three financial institutions denied the loan applications.

The investigation that led to these charges arose from statements two witnesses gave to the BCSO in April 2015, before the BCSO executed its search warrants. Specifically, [Steven Huntington] and [Guy LoCascio] described how Van Den Heuvel had titled the two Escalades in P.H.’s name and directed him to seek loans from banks in mid-2013.

The BCSO subsequently executed the search warrants in July 2015 and recovered certain documents related to this scheme.

In mid-2016, federal investigators commenced an investigation into this fraud scheme. They interviewed [Patrick Hoffman] as well as [Steven Huntington] and [Guy LoCascio]. The investigators also obtained records from the financial institutions and interviewed their employees. This led to a [September 20, 2016 Superseding Indictment], returned September 21, 2016, adding Counts 14 to 19 to the indictment. …

Independent of the federal investigations, the BCSO began investigating Ronald Van Den Heuvel related to his Green Box companies in approximatelyJanuary 2015. The BCSO’s investigation determined that Ronald Van Den Heuvel was promoting Green Box as a process for converting fast food waste into useful products without any need for landfills or waste water discharges. Van Den Heuvel induced lenders and investors to provide funding for his Green Box companies but diverted large sums to other uses, including his own personal spending.

The BCSO’s investigation led to the execution of six search warrants on July 2, 2015, that were issued by Brown County Circuit Judge Zuidemulder. The affidavits established probable cause to believe that Van Den Heuvel operated pervasively fraudulent businesses. The search warrants authorized the seizure of a broad range of records, including “all business and financial records for organizations associated with Ronald Van Den Heuvel from December 31, 2010, to present.”

The [BCSO – Brown Co. Sheriff’s Office] led the operations to execute the search warrants. Because the operation involved searching multiple locations for a broad range of materials, the BCSO obtained the assistance of other law enforcement agencies, including local police departments, Brown County Drug Task Force, and the FBI. On the morning of July 2, 2015, the BCSO briefed all officers involved in the search. The briefing included instructions on the nature of the investigation, the materials to be seized, and the officers’ respective roles. The officers then executed the searches at the respective locations, summarized below.

1. 2077 Lawrence Drive, Suites A & B

As alleged in the search warrant affidavits, Ronald Van Den Heuvel maintained office Suites A and B at 2077 Lawrence Drive. Van Den Heuvel used that address for Green Box NA Green Bay LLC as well as other numerous … entities that he promoted to induce investments and loans, to transfer funds to avoid creditors, and to pay personal expenses. He did not operate any business that actually provided any goods or services in these suites.

The officers began searching the suites at 10:37 am. …

Within the suites, the officers encountered a large volume of records that fell within the scope of the search warrant. In many areas, documents that predated December 31, 2010, were intermingled with records that followed that date. Nonetheless, the officers did not seize all documents. The officers made reasonable efforts to review the documents and determine which fell within the search warrant. The officers also seized some physical items that had evidentiary value, including a golf bag that contained drawings and documents related to Green Box and samples of pellets and oil that Van Den Heuvel used in promotional pitches. The officers’ searches of the suites lasted until approximately 7:00 p.m. …

2. 2302 Lost Dauphin Road (Residence)

The officers conducted a comparatively brief search of the Van Den Heuvel residence. The search began at approximately 10:30 a.m. and concluded about two hours later. According to the search warrant return, the officers seized eleven digital devices that could hold relevant records, a briefcase with files, a checkbook, and a small amount of hard copy files. …

The hard copy records seized from the residence included Green Box business plans and promotional materials, Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s call logs, credit card statements, and receipts from furniture purchased with funds from an account used in the Green Box fraud. These hard copy records also included bank records and correspondence between Kelly Van Den Heuvel and banks regarding bank accounts involved in the Green Box fraud scheme. Defendants claim that the BCSO seized medical records and children’s’ education records. … To the extent such records reflected billing and payment information, they fell within the search warrant as potential evidence of how ill-gotten funds were spent. The affidavit expressly notes by way of example that one victim’s investment into Green Box was diverted to pay Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s dental bill. …

3. 2107 American Blvd. (Patriot Tissue)

The building at 2107 American Boulevard housed Patriot Tissue, LLC, a Van Den Heuvel-controlled entity that converted paper rolls into tissue paper products. The search warrant affidavit stated that Patriot Tissue employees were paid by Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, and that employees would occasionally move between various entities controlled by Van Den Heuvel. The affidavit further stated that documents related to Green Box NA Green Bay were located at the Patriot Tissue facility. … Patriot Tissue was the only Van Den Heuvel entity that actually operated, producing and selling products.

Because Patriot Tissue was an operating business, the officers sought to minimize their search’s intrusiveness. The officers imaged, rather than seized, computers that may have relevant records. The officers encountered a large volume of Van Den Heuvel’s hard copy business and financial records. The officers made reasonable efforts to review the records and seize only records that fell within the search warrant. At one point, the officers determined that they had inadvertently seized several pallets of records that predated the search warrant’s December 31, 2010 limit, and so the officers returned those pallets the same day.

The officers also encountered an office and living quarters occupied by AttorneyTy Willihnganz. The officers took steps not to seize records related to any entities that were not associated with Van Den Heuvel. The officers then instituted procedures to segregate any materials that arguably contained privileged communications.

The search warrant return indicates that, in total, the officers seized 9 file boxes from the front office storeroom, 2 file boxes from Willinganz’s living quarters, a file box and paperwork from the front officer, and samples of oil/chemicals from … a production room.

Given the probable cause to believe that Van Den Heuvel was operating a pervasively fraudulent enterprise, and given the large volume of records Van Den Heuvel maintained, the BCSO ultimately seized a large volume of records and stored them in a secure warehouse at the BCSO facility. The BCSO reviewed the seized materials as part of its investigation. Given the volume and complexity of the materials, as well as the BCSO’s limited resources, the review required a substantial amount of time.

In early 2015, the BCSO apprised the FBI that it was investigating Van Den Heuvel for the Green Box fraud scheme. At that time, the FBI was working with the FDIC to investigate Van Den Heuvel for the Horicon Bank fraud and allowed the BCSO to take the lead in investigating the Green Box fraud scheme. In late 2015, the FBI and the United States Attorney’s Office decided to investigate the Green Box fraud scheme actively, assigning prosecutors and case agents from the Milwaukee offices. The federal investigation into the Green Box fraud is continuing, although no charges have been filed to date.

As that federal investigation progressed into 2016, the FBI took the lead in processing the materials seized by the BCSO. In June 2016, the FBI devoted significant resources to completing review of the materials. The FBI segregated materials that could have significant evidentiary value for the Green Box fraud investigation from other materials that, although potentially relevant and properly seized within the search warrant, were not significant enough to retain. The FBI took custody of the significant materials and scanned them. The United States has provided them to defense counsel in discovery. Those retained materials totaled seven pallets and approximately 313,000 pages.

In late June 2016, the Brown County District Attorney initiated discussions with defense counsel, counsel for Green Box NA Green Bay, and the United States regarding the return of materials not being retained for evidentiary value. Discussions continued through July and August 2016, partly because Ronald Van Den Heuvel changed counsel and had to determine the proper parties to take custody of the material (e.g., Green Box versus Mr. Van Den Huevel). In August 2016, the BCSO returned to defendants the materials deemed not to have evidentiary value. …

Courts have applied this “permeated by fraud” doctrine to approve of broad search warrants when there was probable cause to believe an enterprise was fraudulent. …

• Mr. Van Den Heuvel represented Green Box to be a functioning entity to possible investors when it was not …

• Money obtained from investors for Green Box was used by Mr. Van Den Heuvel for clearly personal expenses, not for stated purposes …

• Those expenditures included items like alimony to his ex-wife, payments on a house for his ex-wife, payments on a Green Bay Packers luxury box, and a trip Las Vegas …

• Mr. Van Den Heuvel directed his employees to make false accounting entries in order to mask his financial activities …

• In order to stall creditors, Mr. Van Den Heuvel wrote large checks that he knew had insufficient funds to cover them …

• He regularly withdrew money from his business entities for his own personal purposes …

• He inflated the value of his purported assets …

• He knowingly made false representations in a civil suit …

• Mr. Van Den Heuvel transferred titles to company vehicles to his son in law in order to use as collateral to obtain loans for Van Den Heuvel’s benefit …

• He took money out of the company but did not pay himself wages in order to avoid paying tax debts to the IRS …

The affidavit makes clear that Mr. Van Den Heuvel ran his businesses as a fraudulent enterprise meant to finance his high-end lifestyle with other people’s money. As such, his businesses were permeated by fraud, thus justifying the seizing of all of his business records. …

[A]lthough the Horicon Bank fraud was not the subject of the BCSO investigation, the BCSO was aware that the FDIC and FBI were investigating Piikkila and Ronald Van Den Heuvel for the Horicon Bank fraud. Consequently, as the BCSO officers came across documents related to the Horicon Bank fraud, the incriminating nature of the documents would have been apparent. By virtue of the plain-view doctrine, the BCSO officers were not required to ignore that incriminating evidence but could lawfully seize it. …

[A]s detailed above, before the search warrant executions in July 2015, the federal investigation had already gathered the vast majority of the necessary evidence and information to prosecute the Horicon Bank fraud. Among its final investigative steps, the FDIC and FBI would have approached Van Den Heuvel directly, whether by subpoena or search warrant, for any additional evidence he had. It just so happened that the BCSO executed its search warrants first. If the [Brown County Sheriff’s Office] had not executed its search warrants, the federal investigators would have inevitably recovered the same documents from Van Den Heuvel directly.

Similarly, for the [Patrick Hoffman] straw borrower fraud, key witnesses [Steve Huntington] and [Guy LoCasico]. had already described the fraud to the BCSO before the search warrant was executed. When federal officers later began investigating this scheme, they reviewed those witness statements and followed their leads, obtaining evidence from [Patrick Hoffman] and the financial institutions as independent sources.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons given above, and for reasons to be stated in subsequent briefing after the evidentiary hearing, the United States respectfully requests that the Court deny the defendants’ motions to suppress evidence and return property.

The facts of the case, as alleged by the indictment, are quite simple. Co-defendants TROY WRAGG, AMANDA KNORR, and WAYDE MCKELVY raised $54 million in unregistered securities offerings for a company called Mantria, which they told investors earned substantial income from various real estate and green energy projects. In truth, Mantria was a Ponzi scheme which simply used new investor money to pay “earnings” to earlier investors. In order to raise the $54 million, WRAGG, KNORR, and MCKELVY made false statements to and omitted material facts from prospective investors. The false statements and material omissions are listed in the indictment. One of the key false statements and material omissions is the fact that MCKELVY told prospective investors that he did not make a “dime” off of their investment, when, in truth, WRAGG and KNORR were secretly wire transferring MCKELVY 10-15% of the new investor funds, totaling $6.2 million.…

In his motion, defendant MCKELVY attempted an old and tired defense attorney tacticof attempting to [sow] confusion where none exists. His 33-page memorandum of incoherent and legally unsupported rambling is simply an attempt to try to use smoke and mirrors to convince this Court that somehow the indictment is legally insufficient when, by any legal standard, the indictment is beyond sufficient. To further attempt to [sow] confusion, the defendant adds legal issues irrelevant to the motion to dismiss, such a legal discussion of potential jury instructions. Strikingly, in his motion, defendant MCKELVY confessed that he made certain false statements to prospective investors, as alleged in the indictment, to induce them into investing in Mantria. Defendant MCKELVY further confessed in his motion that he lied to investors and told them that he did not make a “dime” off their investments in Mantria. This is the exact criminal conduct charged in the indictment. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, therefore, is a legally and factually unsupported effort to evade criminal responsibility for conduct which he freely admits in his motion.…

Notably, in his motion, the defendant admitted that he made numerous false statements to prospective investors to induce them to invest in Mantria. The defendant also admitted that he lied to prospective investors when he told them he did not make a “dime” off their investments, as the indictment alleged that the defendant made $6.2 million which was secretly wired to him by co-defendants and co-conspirators TROY WRAGG and AMANDA KNORR. In his motion, the defendant conceded that these statements to investors were “materially false.” This is exactly the conduct for which the defendant is charged in the indictment. In making these admissions, the defendant admits that he is in fact guilty of the crimes charged. To suggest that the indictment should be dismissed when the defendant appears ready to admit the charged conduct isfarcical.…

Cutting and pasting all of the allegations from the 21-page Count One in each of the next nine counts does not confer any substantive rights or additional knowledge to the defendants – it is just a matter of killing more trees by turning a lengthy and descriptive 27-page indictment into an unwieldy and repetitive indictment in excess of 200 pages.

3. The [Oneida Indian Nation of New York] sues the Department [of the Interior] under the Administrative Procedure Act to overturn a series of final agency actions taken during the previous administration. By those actions, the United States first gave federal approval to and then federally recognized the change of name of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin (“the Wisconsin tribe”) to Oneida Nation, causing confusion with and damaging the [Oneida Indian Nation of NY].The last of the challenged agency actions – the Department’s decision to change the Wisconsin tribe’s federally recognized name that is published in the Federal Register in the official list of federally recognized tribes – appears to have beenapproved by a Department official who was a member of and a former attorney for that Wisconsin tribe who thus had a disqualifying conflict of interest….

5. As a result of the Department’s approval and recognition actions, the Wisconsin tribe is now claiming legal rights in the Oneida Nation name. The Wisconsin tribe also is insisting that the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York] has lost trademark rights in the Oneida Nation name and more generally has now lost the right even to refer to itself as the Oneida Nation, a name by which the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York] has been known. …

7. The Department decided, without regard to any other facts, to automatically accept – for purposes of federal law and federal recognition – the decision of the Wisconsin tribe to change its name. By abdicating its duty to make an independent federal decision before federally approving and recognizing the name change, the Department entirely yielded federal decision-making responsibility to the Wisconsin tribe. …

10. Unless the Department’s actions are set aside, the potential for damage and unfairness to Indian tribes – and chaos – is enormous. Many tribes share common histories and have similar names and now are susceptible to the same misappropriation of identity that the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York] has suffered. …

C. Previous Efforts of the Wisconsin Tribe to Pass Itself Off in New York as the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York / OINNY]

26. Beginning in the 1990s, the Wisconsin tribe sought to interfere in [Oneida Indian Nation of New York’s] affairs and to claim [OINNY]’s rights. For example, the Wisconsin tribe claimed an interest in revenues from the [OINNY]’s casino in New York, claimed rights in the [OINNY]’s reservation in New York, and asserted the power to settle the [OINNY]’s land claim against the State of New York (then pending in the Northern District of New York).

27. The Wisconsin tribe also formed an entity that it named the “Oneida Preservation Committee,” which was named and acted to materially mislead the public into believing it was a [OINNY] entity working in New York on behalf of the OINNY]. The Committee was headed by a Wisconsin tribal official.

28. By confusing the public, causing it to believe that the Committee was the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York], and then intensifying local hostility to [OINNY] by threatening the [Oneida Nation of New York]’s non-Indian neighbors with the loss of their lands, the Wisconsin tribe intended for the Committee to pressure [OINNY] to settle its land claim case. The Committee flooded the area in and around the Oneida reservation in central New York with adversarial mailings and radio ads, knowing that references to Oneida, the Nation and Oneida Nation would be universally understood to refer to the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York]. Specifically, the Committee:

a. used the tribal name “Oneida,” omitting any Wisconsin reference;

b. falsely stated in writing that “[t]he Oneida Preservation Committee is charged by the Nation with working out a settlement that will not displace current residents”;

c. used stationery with a logo that mimicked the [OINNY] logo;

d. used stationery with “New York” printed on it and used a New York return address and a New York postmark on mailings; and

e. stated in mailings that the committee spoke for “the Oneidas,” “the Oneida people” and “the people of the Oneida Nation.”

29. After a mid-1994 mailing, the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York] filed suit to stop the impersonation.

30. The Committee settled by agreeing to a “JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT CONSENT ORDER” that the court entered. The order applied to the Committee, its chair and “all other persons acting under them or on their behalf” and requires them, among other things, to use the following disclaimer in future documents and radio advertisements: “The Oneida Preservation Committee is not affiliated with or approved by the Oneida Indian Nation of New York.” The order required the disclaimer on any document or radio advertisement using the terms: “Oneida Nation,” “Oneida Indian Nation,” “Oneida Preservation Committee,” “the Oneida People,” “the Oneidas,” “the people of the Oneida Nation” and “the Oneida Indians.”

D. The Wisconsin Tribe’s Subsequent Strategy to Misappropriate and Assume the Oneida Nation Name Nationally

31. More recently, the Wisconsin tribe sought to misappropriate the historic Oneida Nation name and identity and to be something other than the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin. Misappropriating the historic Oneida Nation name and eliminating any reference to Wisconsin is intended to convey the false message that the Oneida Nation actually left New York and now resides in Wisconsin and that the [Oneida Indian Nation] on its reservation in New York is an offshoot of a true Oneida Nation that is located in Wisconsin. It also confuses the public and siphons away the goodwill that the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York] has created in its business and governmental relations.

32. The Wisconsin tribe wanted a federal imprimatur to be placed on the new name and to have the United States change the name by which the United States officially recognizes the Wisconsin tribe.

33. To that end, on November 10, 2010, the Wisconsin tribe’s government passed a resolution requesting that the Secretary of the Interior conduct a Secretarial election in which the tribe’s members could vote to amend the tribe’s constitution in several ways, including changing the tribal name from “Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin” to “Oneida Nation.” A Secretarial election is a federal election conducted by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to federal regulations set forth in 25 C.F.R. Part 81. See 25 U.S.C. § 5123 (governs Secretarial approval of amendment of tribal constitutions).

34. By letter dated January 19, 2011, the Wisconsin tribe submitted the resolution to the Midwest Regional Office of the BIA and sought a decision by the Department to conduct a Secretarial election regarding the name change. …

46. The Department appears to have acted under the direction of and notwithstanding the conflict of interest of the Acting Assistant Secretary. The Federal Register indicates that the revised list was published by or under the authority of “Lawrence S. Roberts, Acting Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs.” 81 Fed. Reg. 26826 (May 4, 2016) …(bold and italics omitted); see 82 Fe3d. Reg. 4915, 4917 (Jan. 17, 2017) (most recent published list, under Mr. Roberts’ name, republishing Wisconsin tribe’s changed name). In 2016, the [Oneida Indian Nation of New York / OINNY], by counsel, made FOIA requests to the Department in Washington, D.C. for documents regarding Mr. Roberts’ recusal from decisions regarding the May 4, 2016 list. The Department neither produced documents nor indicated that it had no responsive documents.

47.Mr. [Larry] Roberts, who served during the prior administration and left the Department on January 20, 2017,could not be a neutral decision-maker. He is a member of the Wisconsin tribe, which had included Mr. Roberts’ name in a list provided to the Department in connection with the name-change election, titled “Final List of Registered Voters for the May 2, 2015 Secretarial Election Amending the Constitution and Bylaws of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin.” As a lawyer in private practice,Mr. Roberts had previously represented his tribe and had reason to believe he would continue to do so after leaving government service and returning to private practice.His interests could be substantially affected by the decision to change or not to change the name by which the United States officially recognizes his tribe, andhis impartiality in the matter would reasonably be questioned.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Oneida Indian Nation [of New York] prays for entry of judgment:

1. Declaring to be unlawful and setting aside the Acting Assistant Secretary’s decision to list the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin as “Oneida Nation” in the May 4, 2016, Federal Register list of federally recognized Indian tribes and in subsequent lists;

2. Declaring to be unlawful and setting aside the Midwest Region’s earlier decisions to permit and approve the Wisconsin tribe’s constitutional name-change amendment;

3. Enjoining the Department from approving “Oneida Nation” as the name of the Wisconsin tribe or from listing that tribe as “Oneida Nation” in the official list published by the Department in the Federal Register;

4. Remanding the foregoing matters to the Department for proper administrative consideration, if the Court determines that the agency’s decisions are invalid only for reasons of lack of notice, process, reasoned explanation or absence of a neutral decision-maker; and

5. Awarding the Oneida Indian Nation [of New York] such other and further relief to which it may be entitled at law or in equity or as may otherwise be just and proper.

In any event, ACTI did not respond to or put forth any evidence to contest the following facts presented by CH2E in the Motion—meaning that the Court should deem them admitted:

• As early as November 1, 2013, CH2E [Nevada LLC] contacted ACTI [American Combustion Technologies of California, Inc.] to notify it that the Equipment was suffering from numerous defects and not operating at the warranted levels. …

• ACTI represented that it could fix the defects in a manner that would enable the Equipment to operate at the promised levels, and, on multiple occasions between November 1, 2013 and October 31, 2014, ACTI replaced and redesigned various components of the Equipment. …

• None of ACTI’s attempted repairs, replacements or redesigns succeeded in fixing the individual defects in the Equipment or in bringing the Equipment into a state where it could process at the warranted levels. …

• After ACTI could not fix the Equipment, CH2E incurred over $2 million in costs paid to third parties in its attempt to cure the defective and non-conforming Equipment. …

ACTI’s only defenses are that its principal does not remember specific requests related to each of the costs CH2E incurred, and arguments by counsel that it is possible that CH2E incurred these costs because of how it purportedly operated the Equipment. ACTI presents no admissible evidence to support either of these “defenses.”

According to TheGuardian, the Taiwanese giant Foxconn announced that it will build a $10 billion LCD panel manufacturing facility in Wisconsin that has been warmly welcomed. However, the state has a troubled history of economic development problems, and Foxconn, the supplier to Apple, Google, Amazon and many other technology giants, have been unsuccessful in the fulfillment of his promise. Newspapers should be more alert.

The deal is expected to generate 13,000 jobs in six years in return for about $3 billion in employee benefits. Only 3000 jobs come immediately. Moreover, the Washington Post has reported that Foxconn often does not keep the promise of doing so. By 2013, the company claims to employ 500 employees and invest $30 million in Pennsylvania. This plan was quickly dismissed.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was elected in 2010 in a committed campaign that will bring 250,000 jobs to the people. So far he has not done it yet. A successful project with Foxconn will be an important step in repairing his damaged reputation.

By the end of July, he had his objections to people suspected of the project. At a stop in Eau Claire as he traveled around the state to push for an agreement, the governor said, “There are a lot of people there fighting to give a reason for dislike the project. It’s normal for you, but I think they should go away.”

This project is not only a big win for Walker, but also the Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan – his area will most likely be where the plant was built – and both President Donald Trump. At a press conference, a senior government official shared that Foxconn’s announcement was “meaningful” because “it was a milestone in bringing advanced, specialized manufacturing technology [jobs] in the electronics field to the US.”

Mr. Trump has called on workers affected by the decline in US production in his campaign, with the promise of “America great again.” He pointed to bad trading as an important reason for the country’s economic problems and could do better.

“If I’m not elected, Foxconn will certainly not spend $10 billion,” he told the White House. Ryan said the statement showed commitment to “promoting US manufacturing and bringing jobs to the country” by Mr. Trump.

Great assertions have been made. Trump told the Wall Street Journal that Apple would build three plants in the United States. Walker named the area where Foxconn’s factories would be built there, the “Wisconsin Valley.”

However, the Yahoo Finance site has indicated that Foxconn uses robots. Therefore, Wisconsin people will have f job opportunities than they expect. The condition of workers at Foxconn’s big factories in China is controversial, f example the well-known Longhua factory has experienced a series of suicides of workers.

Jennifer Shilling, a Democrat from Wisconsin, publicly criticized the project. “The bottom line is that this company a history of making big announcements but it’s not working, I’m skeptical about this project and we’ll have to see if there’s a legislative craving. about a $1-to-3 billion enterprise benefit package.”

The Wisconsin legislature is controlled by the Republican Party. They will not need bipartisan approval to pass [grants?] that are likely to be out of the budget process.

Warnings

Foxconn’s investment agreements in Indonesia, India, Vietnam and Brazil failed. For example, in India in 2014, the company promised to invest $5 billion over five years, creating 50,000 jobs.

According to the Washington Post, the actual numbers are much lower. Safety concerns in the workplace will also hamper the Wisconsin project; Recent “right to work” laws will affect employee relations [at] the company.

Newspaper articles say the Wisconsin plant, which is expected to be three times the size of the Pentagon, will be of the largest foreign investments in US history to create jobs.

The average wage offered, plus welfare, is $53,000. The Wisconsin Senate and Walker Office did not provide an feedback on what types of jobs would occur and what skills should be employed. Foxconn, the maker of monitors and assembled phones and computers, is best known for its iPhone.

Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) is a member [partner?] of Foxconn. During Walker’s presidential race was distorted by questions about failed loans. Republican economist and donor Ron Van Den Heuvel has been indicted for borrowing $700,000 from a local bank. Many months after the WEDC was established in 2011, the agency, then led by Walker, lent him over $1.2 million, without a background check.

Similarly, the state’s production tax and agricultural taxes have been severely criticized, almost “wiping out the e income tax on industrial and agricultural producers.”

Six states are said to have negotiated with Foxconn. For the purpose of reducing property taxes and vocational training costs, the Wisconsin Budget Project (WBP) Joe Peacock has warned that the total cost of winning the race could exceed $3 billion. The same contract, he said, often ends up as a “total game 0” for the states.

Speaking in the discussion a day after the deal was announced, Walker said, “The recovery of subsidies is not the right target” and “protection measures” are being implemented. “My responsibility is to protect the state taxpayer,” he said.

4. Investors and Shareholders (who will have oversite?) Must disclose under GTC Directive

Ed,

In 2007, Glory [LLC / OSGC] allowed Nature’s Way [Tissue] Corporation to switch to be TTL, LLC. That way Artley [Skenandore Jr.] et al [i.e. Ron Van Den Heuvel & Steven Peters] could not have personal assets attached for repayment as a corporation, but as an LLC could onlyhave the business’ assets attached. [OSGC CEO]Kevin Cornelius et al plan to do the same with Oneida Energy, Inc. switch to Oneida Recycling [Solutions], LLC.

The Court states that the matter is set for court trial on September 18, 2017.
The Court inquires as to why the case should be dismissed now as the record is very confusing.
Mr. Smies responds.
Mr. Ganzer responsds that they will be prepared for trial on 9/18. Ganzer states that [Sharad] Tak’s ownership interest has been transferred.

The Court comments on the election of remedies. The Court states that this case needs factual development. The business agreements, transaction, and notes are confusing and the record is unclear. The Court believes two claims survive at this time, the specific performance claim and the breach of promissory notes claim.
Mr. Ganzer responds.

The Court denies the motions. The case will proceed to trial on 9/18. The Court gives directions regarding exhibits and instructs them to confer on joint exhibits and to talk to the clerk.

Mr. Smies states that the plaintiff can’t prevail on both claims. The Court responds. Mr. Ganzger responds.

The Court directs the parties to file pretrial documents, including exhibits by Wednesday September 13, 2017.

Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel is charged for his role in two schemes to defraud financial institutions by using straw borrowers to obtain loans for his personal benefit. The government alleges in Counts One through Thirteen that Mr. Van Den Heuvel, his wife, and a loan officer participated in a scheme to defraud Horicon Bank by obtaining a series of loans through straw borrowers [Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. Partner & General Manager Steven Peters; Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. Vice-President Debra Stary; Vos Electric, Inc. Vice-President William Bain / Bill Bain; Philippine-national live-in nanny Julie Gumban; and wife Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel‘s sham company KYHKJG, LLC] (the Horicon bank scheme). The government further alleges in Counts Fourteen through Nineteen that Mr. Van Den Heuvel alone participated in a scheme to defraud several other financial institutions by having his employee [& son-in-law Patrick Hoffman] attempt to obtain loans using fraudulent employment information and backed by two vehicles that Mr. Van Den Heuvel had titled in the employee[ / son-in-law]’s name (the car loan scheme).

Mr. Van Den Heuvel has moved to sever the car loan counts from the Horicon Bank counts, arguing that the charges were improperly joined and, alternatively, that he will suffer unfair prejudice if the charges are all tried together. The United States opposes the motion. For the following reasons, the Court finds that the car loan counts are properly joined with the Horicon Bank counts and that a joint trial on all counts will not unfairly prejudice Mr. Van Den Heuvel. The Court therefore will deny Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s severance motion. …

The following allegations are taken from the Superseding Indictment. … In 2008 and 2009, Paul J. Piikkila was a loan officer for Horicon Bank, working at the branch in Appleton, Wisconsin. … He had authority to make loans up to $250,000 on his own, but he needed approval from the bank’s Business Lenders Committee for loans above that figure.

In late 2007 or early 2008, Ronald Van Den Heuvel approached Mr. Piikkila seeking loans from Horicon Bank to himself and his business entities. Mr. Van Den Heuvel represented himself as a Green Bay businessman. At the time, he was married to Kelly Van Den Heuvel. On or about January 17, 2008, Mr. Piikkila authorized a loan to one of Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s business entities. … Two months later, Mr. Piikkila sought approval for a $7,100,000 loan to a different entity owned by Mr. Van Den Heuvel. The Business Lenders Committee refused to authorize that loan because, based on their investigation, Mr. Van Den Heuvel was not a good credit risk. Mr. Piikkila’s supervisors instructed him not to make any more loans to Mr. Van Den Heuvel or his business entities.

Mr. Piikkila ignored those instructions and issued a series of loans that were used to benefit Mr. Van Den Heuvel and his businesses. Those nine loans, each of which was for $250,000 or less, were issued to individuals who did not receive the loan proceeds and who did not regard themselves as responsible for repaying the loans. … Mr. Piikkila and the Van Den Heuvels knew that those loans did not go to the straw borrowers.

One of Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s business entities was a company called EARTH. In June 2013, Mr. Van Den Heuvel persuaded an EARTH employee [and son-in-law Patrick Hoffman], to apply for loans from financial institutions that would be used by Mr. Van Den Heuvel and his business entities. … To help [Patrick Hoffman] qualify for loans, Mr. Van Den Heuvel transferred the titles to two Cadillac Escalades from EARTH to [Patrick Hoffman]. The Escalades, however, remained in EARTH’s custody and control. Mr. Van Den Heuvel also had pay stubs created for [Patrick Hoffman] that substantially inflated his income, and he had [Patrick Hoffman] falsely represent his job title, responsibilities, and income on loan applications. … [Patrick Hoffman] used this fraudulent information to apply for loans from Community First Credit Union, Nicolet National Bank, and Pioneer Credit Union, offering the two Escalades as security. …

Mr. Piikkila and the Van Den Heuvels were indicted in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 19, 2016. Count One charges all three defendants with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and to make false statements to Horicon Bank from on or about January 1, 2008, through on or about September 30, 2009…. Mr. Van Den Heuvel alone is charged in Counts Two through Thirteen…. Ms. Van Den Heuvel is charged along with her husband in Counts Ten and Eleven …

The grand jury returned a superseding indictment on September 20, 2016, charging Mr. Van Den Heuvel alone with devising and participating in a scheme to defraud federally insured financial institutions and to obtain loans from those institutions by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations from on or about June 10, 2013, through on or about July 2, 2013. …

TO DO ANYWAY, JUST BEFORE GCF SUED ONWI & OSGC & SUBSIDIARIES FOR $400 MILLION) …

The matter is assigned to United States District Judge William C. Griesbach for trial and to this Court for resolving pretrial motions. Mr. Piikkila has pleaded guilty to Count One of the Indictment and is currently awaiting sentencing. … On August 30, 2017, this Court granted Ms. Van Den Heuvel’s unopposed motion to sever her trial from that of Mr. Van Den Heuvel.

On June 16, 2017, Mr. Van Den Heuvel filed a motion seeking to sever Counts Fourteen through Nineteen from Counts One through Thirteen. … The United States filed its response on July 12, 2017. …

A review of the Superseding Indictment demonstrates that the car loan counts and the Horicon Bank counts are categorically related. … Both schemes involve Mr. Van Den Heuvel allegedly using straw borrowers and making false statements to obtain loans from financial institutions for his personal gain.

Mr. Van Den Heuvel maintains that a joint trial would be highly prejudicial to him because of the disparate nature of the car loan and Horicon Bank schemes, the significant passage of time between the two schemes, the inadmissibility of evidence of one scheme in a separate trial on the other, and the strong potential that the jury will use evidence introduced to support one scheme as proof of guilt regarding the other scheme. … These potential sources of prejudice, according to Mr. Van Den Heuvel, cannot be alleviated by curative or cautionary jury instructions.

The Court finds that Mr. Van Den Heuvel has not made the strong showing of prejudice necessary to justify severance under Rule 14(a). The two schemes took place during distinct time periods and involved Mr. Van Den Heuvel allegedly attempting to obtain separate loans from different financial institutions. The risk of jury confusion is therefore minimal, given that the evidence to support each scheme appears to be relatively short and simple. … As such, the Court is not convinced that a jury could not keep separate the evidence used to support each scheme. Likewise, given that both schemes involved Mr. Van Den Heuvel allegedly making false statements to obtain loans for his personal benefit, the Court is not persuaded that evidence of one scheme could not be used to prove motive, intent, plan, or absence of mistake under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2) with respect to the other scheme.

Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s assertion that no jury instruction could cure the prejudicial effect of a joint trial is unavailing. It appears that a jury could capably sort through the evidence, and juries are presumed to follow limiting instructions to consider each count separately. … Accordingly, severance of the the car loan counts under Rule (14)a is not necessary to provide Mr. Van Den Heuvel a fair trial in this case. …

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s severance motion.

NOW COME the plaintiffs, Tissue Technology, LLC, Partners Concepts Development, Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. and Tissue Products Technology Corp., and hereby submit the following as their final pretrial report in reference to this action:

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff companies seek enforcement of the Notes and Agreements they made with defendant Tak Investments, LLC surrounding the sale of the Oconto Falls tissue mill from those plaintiff companies to various companies owned by Sharad Tak. The parties had been working on a sale agreement for quite some time, going back to 2005, which was finally consummated at a closing with transfer of all assets of the mill on April 16, 2007. Leading up to that time, there were several agreements which anticipated a level of funding so as to satisfy debts of the OFTI Group and ensure “clean title” to those assets upon sale.

The course of dealings between the parties clearly established that there was a substantial shortfall in funding which was to be made up by 4 Promissory Notes that are now the subject of this action. In exchange for the transfer of the assets of OFTI Group, which are all companies controlled by Ronald Van Den Heuvel, Defendant Company, Tak Investments, LLC, and individual defendant, Sharad Tak, provided the Van Den Heuvel entities three (3) different avenues of income in order to facilitate the transaction and satisfy the obligation. The parties entered into a Sales & Marketing Agreement which provided a small percentage of gross revenues to Tissue Technology, LLC. In addition, four (4) Notes were executed at closing called the “Seller Notes” with the combined value of $30,589,000.00. Those Notes are payable to the Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. and were subordinated to the debt of Goldman Sachs, which has now been paid in full and has released the Tak companies from liability therefore. Also executed at the time of the closing were the Notes that are the subject of this lawsuit, termed the “Investment Notes”. These three recovery avenues for the plaintiff are all discussed together since none of the Tak companies have paid any of them and all three are currently in litigation, with the Sales & Marketing Agreement and the Seller Notes cases pending in Oconto County, Wisconsin.

At the time of the closing, the Final Business Terms Agreement was also executed by and between the parties hereto and serve as some additional complications to this lawsuit. The Final Business Terms Agreement provided that the Investment Notes could be satisfied in two ways. First, the Final Business Terms Agreement provided that if the plaintiffs deemed the Notes canceled, they would receive a 27% interest in Tak Investments, LLC. Demand was made for that 27% and the defendant’s denied the plaintiffs that avenue of recovery. The second avenue was cancelation of the Investment Notes if Tak Investments, LLC and associated companies would enter into a construction contract with the Spirit Construction, Inc., a Van Den Heuvel family company, in the amount of $315 million. No such contract was ever consummated. All of the above having been said, that leaves the parties hereto with simply the Notes which currently provide for outstanding principal and interest in the amount of $37,028,423.00. The Notes also contemplate payment of attorney’s fees. Plaintiff’s respectfully request judgment in that amount and an award of attorney’s fees. Finally, in defense of the plaintiff’s allegations, Sharad Tak and Tak Investments, LLC take the position that the Notes and Final Business Terms Agreement make no sense, that they were issued favorably toward Tak and his companies in that he has testified that the Notes were meant to be vehicles so that his company could borrow against them. His explanations make no sense such that the only credible interpretation of the contract is that proffered by the plaintiffs such that the Notes must be enforced.

Note: witnesses may be culled depending upon admissibility of documents.

BACKGROUND OF EXPERTS

Edward Kolasinski did some simple math to come up with the current damages amount. He is a Certified Public Accountant who was worked both as a Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer and consultant. His curriculum vitae is attached hereto.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

See attached.

DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION OR PORTIONS OF TRANSCRIPTS

The plaintiffs will offer the deposition testimony of Sharad Tak at pages 74-76; 81, 89 and 91, if necessary. Otherwise, all transcripts will be used in the normal course of cross- examination, refresh recollection, etc.

TIME TO TRY CASE

The plaintiffs anticipate it will take two to three days to try this matter.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The proposed Findings of Fact are submitted herewith. Dated this 13th day of September, 2017.

4. Defendant Sharad Tak is the managing member of Tak Investments, LLC.

5. In 2005, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel and Sharad Tak commenced discussions about a business relationship between their respective companies which revolved around the purchase and construction of tissue mills, including an existing tissue mill in Oconto Falls, Wisconsin and other prospective mills to be built around the country.

6. Through the course of their dealings in 2005 and into 2006, the parties entered into several memoranda of understanding.

7. The memoranda included discussions of the purchase of the Oconto Falls tissue mill and funding for that purchase by a Goldman Sachs consortium for approximately $84 million.

8. A short time before the closing, which occurred on April 16, 2007, the prospective funding from Goldman Sachs was reduced from $84 million to $65 million.

9. In order to continue with the transaction and to satisfy various debt holders to a reduced level so as to ensure that the transaction would move forward, the plaintiff companies agreed to be responsible for various debts of the seller, Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc., and defendants Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak agreed to the issuance of four (4) Notes in the amount of $16,400,000.00.

10. In addition to the foregoing, the parties had previously entered into a Sales & Marketing Agreement by and between Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s companies and ST Paper, Inc., the company which ultimately owned the tissue mill after closing.

11. In support of the four (4) Promissory Notes, the parties agreed to and executed a Final Business Terms Agreement regarding the prospect of business between the parties on those Notes.

12. In addition to the foregoing, at closing, plaintiff Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. was issued Notes by ST Paper, which is owned by Tak Investments, LLC, deemed subordinated notes and referred to by the parties as “Seller Notes”, in the approximate amount of $30,589,000.00.

13. The Final Business Terms Agreement supporting the four (4) Notes herein, termed the “Investment Notes”, called for those Notes to be canceled in the event the parties entered into a contract with Spirit Construction, Inc. for the building of tissue mills in the amount of $315 million.

14. The construction of those prospective paper mills was never consummated. No agreements were reached with Spirit Construction for the $315 million construction contracts.

15. The Final Business Terms Agreement also provided that the Notes could be canceled and the plaintiff companies would receive a 27% interest in Tak Investments, LLC. 16. The plaintiff companies made due demand for issuance of the 27% by Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak. They refused and failed to deliver the 27%.

17. Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak took the position that the Notes could not be canceled.

18. Since the defendants failed to offer 27% of its interest in Tak Investments, LLC and since Spirit Construction never entered into a $315 million contract with Tak Investments, LLC or any of the Tak related companies, the plaintiffs sought enforcement of the Notes themselves.

19. Defendants Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak received consideration for the issuance of the four (4) Promissory Notes.

20. The four (4) Promissory Notes were issued as the result of a funding gap when defendant, Tak Investments, LLC purchased the mill from the plaintiff companies. Despite due demand having been made, defendant Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak have failed and refused to honor their Notes.

21. The plaintiff companies hold all of those Notes, though proceeds of the Notes have been pledged to various parties.

22. The only Note that was assigned outright was assigned to William Bain, who later returned the Note to the plaintiffs.

23. The plaintiffs have pledged proceeds from those Notes as collateral to Associated Bank and VHC Inc.

24. The Notes held by the plaintiff companies are valid and enforceable.

25. Sharad Tak, the managing member of defendant Tak Investments, LLC, has testified that the Notes were for the benefit of his company so that he could obtain financing for his company and as a line of credit.

26. The testimony of Sharad Tak regarding the purpose of the Notes and Final Business Terms Agreement makes no commercial sense.

27. The Notes remain unpaid and there is currently due and owing on those Notes as of September 1, 2017 the principal and interest amount of $37,028,423.00.

28. According to the terms of the Notes themselves, the plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees for having to enforce the Notes.

According to the 12/01/07 issue of The Washingtonian, ‘Living the American Dream,’ by Madhu Jain:

Mahinder Tak, a radiation oncologist and retired US Army colonel, is another player on Washington’s cultural scene. Her home in a wooded area in Bethesda, where she lives with her entrepreneur husband, Sharad, houses arguably the largest personal collection of modern and contemporary Indian art in the United States. Last year Art & Antiques magazine listed her among the top 100 collectors of art in the country. …

Sharad Tak, the entrepreneur who lives in Bethesda, was the pioneer. In 1974, he lobbied for Indian-Americans to be considered minorities, enabling them to take advantage of incentives given to minority-owned businesses.

Tak’s company,ST Systems Corporation, provided programming and systems integration to agencies including NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration. He brought in other Indian-Americans to work with him, including Frank Islam[.]

Plaintiffs filed this action on September 30, 2014, seeking specific performance of the Final Business Terms Agreement’s provision requiring a transfer of a 27 percent interest in Tak Investments to the Plaintiffs upon the Plaintiffs’ deeming cancelled four Investment Notes made by Tak Investments, seven years earlier, on April 16, 2007. This action is the second Plaintiffs have filed in this Court seeking this relief. The Court dismissed the prior suit, Case No. 12-C-1305.

With their now Amended Complaint here, Plaintiffs seek relief under two mutually contradictory theories. First, they seek enforcement of the Investment Notes themselves against Tak Investments, asking between $30 million and $37 million in damages. That assumes the notes have not been cancelled. They also again seek specific performance of the Final Business Terms Agreement by Tak, requesting that Tak personally transfer a 27 percent interest in Tak Investments to the Plaintiffs. That assumes the notes have been deemed cancelled. It also assumes Tak owns an interest that can be transferred.

The Defendants assert a series of factual and legal defenses to the Plaintiffs’ claims. In its motion for summary judgment, Tak Investments contended that the claims for enforcement of the Investment Notes are barred by the statute of limitations and that the Investment Notes were without consideration. Mr. Tak was only recently made a party to this action. He filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of the election of remedies doctrine, as well as a motion for summary judgment on the basis that he has no ownership interest in Tak Investments, precluding him from being able to transfer any interest in Tak Investments. Beyond these issues, which will be re-presented at trial, discovery has now uncovered that at least two third parties are in possession of the Investment Notes. Specifically, documents produced by Nicolet National Bank indicate that the Investment Note in the amount of $4,400,000 was assigned to Baylake Bank and remains assigned to Nicolet Bank as a result of the merger of Nicolet Bank and Baylake Bank. In addition, documents produced by Associated Bank demonstrate that the Investment Note in the amount of $4,000,000 was assigned to Associated Bank. This evidence defeats the Plaintiffs’ claims for enforcement of the Investment Notes as well as the equitable claim for enforcement of the Final Business Terms Agreement against Mr. Tak.

II. Prior Decisions/Judicial Analysis.

The Court has entered at least three substantive decisions and orders prior to the trial that begins on Monday: a summary judgment decision dismissing the 2012 Complaint and a summary judgment decision dismissing, in part, the 2014 Complaint and giving rise to the Amended Complaint that will be the basis of trial. In addition, the Court has denied Tak Investments’ section 1292(b) motion for permissive appeal based on the second summary judgment decision. In the course of these decisions, the Court has reached a series of, at the least, informal conclusions about the claims. It is not necessary to engage in a discussion about whether or not they form part of the “law of the case” because their relevance is readily apparent. The defendants replicate them here without advocacy:

On the purpose and effect of the Investment Notes:

In light of these indemnification provisions [binding the Plaintiffs], it is evident that the parties to the Final Agreement did not intend the notes to function as traditional promissory notes. The payee, OFTI, effectively promised that it would never seek to collect the $16,400,000. Instead, it appears that the notes functioned as an incentive for Tak to consummate Phase 2 Financing and enter into an additional contract worth over $315,000,000. Paragraph 2(H) stated that if Tak consummated Phase 2 Financing on or before the tenth anniversary of the notes, the Notes would be deemed cancelled. In addition, ¶ 2(G) provided that if Tak consummated Phase 2 Financing after the notes had been cancelled and the 27% share had been transferred, OFTI would return the 27% share to Tak. Thus, the notes provided Tak an incentive to consummate Phase 2 Financing quickly. If Tak consummated Phase 2 Financing before the third anniversary of the notes, Tak would not be required to transfer a 27% share to OFTI. If OFTI deemed the notes cancelled after the third anniversary, Tak would suffer the 27% loss until it consummated Phase 2 Financing.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that because [Ron] Van Den Heuvel assigned [even] one of the four Investment Notes to [Bill] Bain, OFTI lacked authority to deem all four notes cancelled on April 20, 2010. As a result, OFTI could not satisfy the condition precedent required to trigger the ownership transfer outline in ¶ 2(G) of the Final Agreement at that time. There is also no evidence that Bain properly assigned his interest in the note back to [Ron] Van Den Heuvel at any subsequent time. OFTI has therefore failed to meet its burden at summary judgment, and Tak is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on OFTI’s contract claim.

On the significance of the indemnity provisions to which the Plaintiffs agreed:

Paragraph 2(G) provided that through the third anniversary of the notes, OFTI agreed to pay any payments due for interest or principal as required by the notes. OFTI also agreed to indemnify Tak and hold it harmless against any “damages, losses, deficiencies, actions, demands, judgments, fines, fees, costs and expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, of or against Investments [Tak]” resulting from OFTI’s failure [to] make such payments. This indemnification included claims made against Tak by any future holder of the notes. (Id.) Paragraph 2(I) provided that OFTI agreed to indemnity Tak against all claims to enforce the notes brought by OFTI or future holders, “other than the enforcement of the pledge described above,” presumably referring to the 27% ownership transfer provision. Paragraph 2(I) did not contain a termination date for this indemnification.

The Plaintiffs protest that LLCs have, under state law, all kinds of rights to convey interests and dispose of property. That, of course, is true. But none of the statutory provisions Plaintiffs cite stands for the principle that an LLC may convey something it does not possess, namely, an ownership interest in itself.

Decision and Order, p. 3, Dec. 2, 2016 (ECF No. 40.).

On the status of pending legal issues:

It is possible that Plaintiffs do not have a viable claim against Tak Investments for the breach of the promissory notes, either because the amended claim does not relate back to the original complaint and is thus barred by the statute of limitations or because the claim is incompatible with Plaintiffs’ principal claim that the notes were canceled. Plaintiffs’ claims largely survived at summary judgment and at the amended pleading stage because the record required further development. I was unable to conclude at summary judgment that judgment should be entered in the Defendants’ favor on the entire case due to an underdeveloped record. (ECF No. 40 at 7.) I allowed Plaintiffs’ amended claim against Tak Investments to proceed because I could not conclude at the pleading stage that such a claim would necessarily be futile. (ECF No. 48 at 8.) The upcoming bench trial provides an opportunity to potentially resolve both of Plaintiffs’ claims or, at the very least, produce a more developed and clear record for any subsequent litigation. There is no clear and controlling question of law for the Court of Appeals to resolve that would speed up this case. The currently schedule trial will.

The defense reserves the right to call rebuttal witnesses who have not been identified above, as well as any witness identified by Plaintiffs. V. Background of All Expert Witnesses. Defendants do not anticipate calling any expert witnesses. VI. Defendants’ Listed Exhibits. Defendants will file a separate Exhibit List. While the parties have conferred regarding the exhibits to be offered at trial and will stipulate to the admissibility of exhibits (with exceptions), the Defendants anticipate at least one evidentiary issue with respect to the exhibits. The four Investment Notes are central to the litigation. The Defendants contend that they were given without consideration, that the Plaintiffs suffered no pecuniary damage as a result of their issuance, that they have been deemed cancelled and, finally, that one or more of the notes has been assigned to other parties, depriving the Plaintiffs of the ability to try to enforce them. Accordingly, the Defendants will request that the Plaintiffs produce the original Investment Notes for trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 1002.

VII. Deposition Designations. Defendants do not intend to offer any testimony through portions of transcripts or other recordings or depositions to be read into the record or played at trial as substantive evidence.

VIII. Estimated Time Needed to Try the Case. Defendants estimate that the trial in this matter will take no more than two days. This matter is scheduled for a trial to the Court. IX. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

2. Paragraph 2G of the Final Business Terms Agreement provides that upon the deemed cancellation of the four investment notes by the OFTI Group, “the OFTI Group shall receive an undiluted 27 percent ownership interest of the highest class in investments and such ownership interest shall be above and beyond the ownership interest in Items 2.K of this agreement; provided however, if Phase II, as defined below, occurs after the transfer of ownership interest and prior to the tenth anniversary of the date of the investment notes, the OFTI Group shall return any ownership interest received from the investment notes.”

3. On the same day that the Final Business Terms Agreement was signed, Tak Investments made four notes totaling $16.4 Million in favor of Tissue Products Technology Corp. These are referred to by the parties as the “Investment Notes” and in the Final Business Terms Agreement.

4. Tak Investments, as maker of the Investment Notes, received nothing in exchange for making the Investment Notes. No money was paid to Tak Investments and no credit was given to Tak Investments as a result of it making the notes.

5. On April 17, 2007, Tissue Products Technology Corp. assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $4,400,000 to William Bain.

6. On April 24, 2007, Tissue Products Technology Corp. assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $4,000,000 to Associated Bank, N.A. to secure indebtedness of Partners Concepts Development, Inc.

9. On March 5, 2008, Tissue Products Technology Corp. and Tak Investments signed documents amending the Investment Notes to change the payee to Tissue Technology, LLC.

10. On March 12, 2008, Ronald Van Den Heuvel, through Tissue Technology, LLC, assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $4,400,000 to Baylake Bank. This assignment was collateral for a $650,000 loan from Baylake Bank to Ronald Van Den Heuvel as documented in Note No. 490474 dated March 12, 2008. The assignment was accepted by Baylake Bank as collateral to secure all debts and obligations of Tissue Technology, LLC and Ronald Van Den Heuvel.

11. On June 30, 2008, Associated Bank charged off two loans to Partners Concepts Development, Inc., one in the amount of $517,630.60, and the other in the amount of $341,746.93. Associated Bank’s records indicate that the collateral for these loans was a note from Tak Investments valued at “$0.”

12. On December 28, 2009, Ronald Van Den Heuvel, through Tissue Technology, LLC, assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $4,400,000 to Baylake Bank. This assignment was collateral for a $702,485.83 loan from Baylake Bank to Ronald Van Den Heuvel and Nature’s Choice Tissue, LLC as documented in Note No. 513406 dated December 24, 2009. The assignment was accepted by Baylake Bank as collateral to secure all debts and obligations of Tissue Technology, LLC and Ronald Van Den Heuvel.

13. Nicolet National Bank, as a result of a merger with Baylake Bank, holds the $4,400,000 Investment Note.

14. Records kept by the Plaintiffs concerning the Investment Notes reflect the assignment of the Investment Notes to VHC, Inc. and Associated Bank.

15. Plaintiffs, through Ronald Van Den Heuvel and counsel, have repeatedly notified the Defendants of the fact they have deemed the Investment Notes cancelled.

B. Conclusions of Law

1. The Investment Notes are Void for Lack of Consideration. For a contract to be valid under Wisconsin law, it must be supported by consideration. This includes the conferral of value in exchange for the note. In making the notes, there was no benefit conferred on Tak Investments. No money was paid to Tak Investments as a result of it making the notes, and no credit extended. Similarly, there was nothing done by Tissue Products Technology Corp. to its detriment as a result of Tak Investments making the notes. As the Investments Notes were not supported by consideration, they are void and unenforceable.

2. The Statute of Limitations Bars Plaintiffs’ Claim to Enforce the Investment Notes. The Investment Notes matured on April 16, 2010. Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the Investment Notes accrued on that date for purposes of the applicable six-year statute of limitations, Wis. Stat. § 893.43. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint asserting claims for breach of the Investment Notes was not filed until April 3, 2017. Since this is beyond the six-year period of the statute of limitations, and these claims do not relate back to the Complaint filed on September 30, 2014, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred. That Complaint nowhere sought the enforcement of the Investment Notes, nor did it implicate Sharad Tak personally. 3. Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Enforce the Investment Notes Assigned to Third Parties. Since all of the Investment Notes have been, and remain, assigned to third parties, Plaintiffs are without standing to enforce the Investment Notes. The assignment of any one note precludes their enforcement.

4. The Specific Performance Sought Against Sharad Tak is Impossible. Because he does not possess any units in Tak Investments, Mr. Tak cannot be compelled to transfer a 27 percent interest in Tak Investments to Plaintiffs. 5. The Specific Performance Sought Against Sharad Tak Cannot Be Ordered Given the Plaintiffs’ Failure to Satisfy a Condition Precedent. The assignment to third parties of the Investment Notes precludes the Plaintiffs from being capable of deeming the Investment Notes cancelled so as to require Mr. Tak to transfer the 27 percent interest in Tak Investments.

6. The Election of Remedies Doctrine Precludes the Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiffs cannot proceed with their mutually-inconsistent claims. “A party to a contract cannot both affirm and disaffirm it to suit the party’s purposes at different times. Rather, a party must elect to treat it either as void or as valid and then stand by that election.” 1 Jay E. Grenig, Wisconsin Pleading and Practice § 7.6 (5th ed. 2017). Plaintiffs’ claim for enforcement of the Investment Notes is inconsistent with, “and repugnant to, another certain state of facts relied on as the basis of another remedy,” Jarosch v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 837 F. Supp.2d 980, 1017 (E.D. Wis. 2011) (quoting Bank of Commerce v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, 39 Wis. 2d 30, 38, 158 N.W.2d 350 (1968)), namely, Plaintiffs’ deeming the Investment Notes cancelled.

Oneida, WI – On Monday, September 18, 2017, at 8:00 a.m., enrollees of theOneida Nation of Wisconsin (ONWI) delivered to the ONWI Business Committee (OBC) Secretary’s Office a petition signed by 128 members of the General Tribal Council (GTC – the Tribe’s governing body) in order to convene a special GTC meeting to hear a presentation from Gross & Klein LLP and to vote on retaining the California law firm’s services with the aim of recovering millions of dollars in losses and damages from ‘green energy’ fraud schemes.

On July 17, 2017, the ONWI GTC adopted new requirements for the OBC’s processing of GTC petitions and the scheduling of GTC meetings: “General Tribal Council petitions submitted to the Tribal Secretary’s Office shall be processed and a General Tribal Council meeting be convened within 120 days of receipt by the Tribal Secretary’s Office.”

On June 28, 2017, ONWI-chartered Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) and its Delaware-registered subsidiary, Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC (GBRE), filed an appeal with the 7th Circuit Court (Case #17-2341) following U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach’sJune 6, 2017 Order granting the dismissal of OSGC & GBRE’s December 23, 2016, lawsuit against the City of Green Bay in the Eastern District of WI (Case #16-C-1700). Chief Judge Griesbach’s August 24, 2017 Order stated, “Pursuant to Circuit Rule 33, briefing in this appeal is SUSPENDED pending further court order.”

OSGC & GBRE’s lawsuit stems from the City’s Common Council’s 2012 vote to rescind a Conditional Use Permit for OSGC to build a facility purported to safely and profitably convert trash to electricity and other products. Some ONWI members contend that the endeavor was another version of long-time OSGC-associate and Lawrence / De Pere, WI, resident Ron Van Den Heuvel’s international “Green Box Investment Fraud Scheme” currently under investigation by the Brown County Sheriff’s Office and five federal agencies.

Gross & Klein LLP has focus areas inrepresenting Native American tribes and in complex civil litigation and cases involving antitrust and trade law, as well as in cases involving environmental and natural resource issues.

“General Tribal Council will have an opportunity to select its own legal representation, as guaranteed by the ONWI Constitution, and have attorneys advocate for the interests and rights of the full ONWI membership. In order to have someone look out for all of us, GTC needs to hire legal representation which isn’t related to any of us,” said petition organizer Leah Sue Dodge.

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission alleges as follows:

Nature of the Action

1. This case involves misrepresentations and the misappropriation of millions of dollars of investor funds by defendant Ronald Van Den Heuvel. He took advantage of investors who believed that they were investing in a new way to recycle post-consumer waste.

2. Van Den Heuvel lured investors with promises that he would use their funds for an eco-friendly recycling process called the Green Box Process. He claimed that the Green Box Process would take food-contaminated waste and convert it into usable products, such as recycled paper. Van Den Heuvel represented that he would use investor funds to buy equipment, open a Green Box facility, and ultimately help to create a green solution for post-consumer waste.

3. In reality, Van Den Heuvel misappropriated a substantial percentage of the funds contributed by investors. Instead of using investor funds to implement the Green Box Process, Van Den Heuvel used a significant portion of their investments for improper purposes, such as a Cadillac Escalade, payments to his ex-wife, overdue taxes, Green Bay Packers tickets, and cash for himself.

4. Van Den Heuvel took advantage of foreign investors who put their trust in him. In particular, in 2012 and 2014, Van Den Heuvel raised over $3 million from a Canadian asset management firm named Cliffton Equities. Van Den Heuvel promised to use its investment to buy and operate specific pieces of equipment, but in reality, he spent the money as he pleased.

5. Van Den Heuvel also exploited investors from China. Between 2014 and 2015, Van Den Heuvel and his company (Green Box NA Detroit, LLC) raised approximately $4,475,000 in investment proceeds from at least nine investors from China. The investors made their investments through the EB-5 immigrant investor program, which is a U.S. government immigration program for foreign nationals seeking permanent U.S. residency.

6. Van Den Heuvel promised to use the funds from the EB-5 investors from China to develop a Green Box facility in Michigan. In reality, Van Den Heuvel misappropriated millions of dollars, using investor funds to pay unrelated business and personal expenses.

7. Van Den Heuvel made other misrepresentations about the Green Box Process in order to attract funds from investors. He touted a relationship with Cargill and the ability to use a key additive when, in reality, Cargill had terminated the relationship and sued his company. He claimed that tax-exempt bonds would provide approximately $95 million to $125 million in financing when, in reality, he knew that the State of Michigan had all but denied the application. He represented that his company held seven patents when, in reality, it held only one. He also told different investors that their funds had purchased the same pieces of equipment.

8. Based on Van Den Heuvel’s representations, the investors believed that they were investing in a new, environmentally-friendly project to recycle waste. In reality, they unwittingly provided the financing for Van Den Heuvel’s improper spending spree.

September 19, 2017 Indictment, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CR-160, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel

INDICTMENT

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

1. Beginning at least by March 8, 2011, and continuing at least through August 2015 in the State and Eastern District of Wisconsin and elsewhere,

RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL

knowingly devised and participated in a scheme to defraud lenders and investors, and to obtain money from lenders and investors by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises related to his “Green Box” business plan, which scheme is more fully described below.

2. As a result of his scheme, Van Den Heuvel fraudulently obtained more than $9,000,000 from a range of lenders and investors, including individual acquaintances, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (“WEDC”), a Canadian institutional investor, and Chinese investors who participated in the EB-5 immigrant investor program.

Background

3. At all times material to this indictment:

a. Defendant Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel purported to be a businessman in De Pere, Wisconsin. Earlier in his career, Van Den Heuvel had some success in the recycling and paper-making industry. By the end of 2010, however, Van Den Heuvel did not own or control any facilities that generated any significant revenue. Around then, Van Den Heuvel began promoting his “Green Box” business plan to obtain funds in the scheme.

b. As represented by Van Den Heuvel, the Green Box business plan was to purchase the equipment and facilities necessary to employ proprietary processes that could convert solid waste into consumer products and energy, without any wastewater discharge or landfilling of byproducts.

c. As part of his scheme, Van Den Heuvel formed and controlled numerous business entities, including ones identified below, that he used interchangeably for business and personal purposes.

d. Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC (“EARTH”) was the operating name of Everett Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC, which Van Den Heuvel formed as a Wisconsin limited liability corporation. Van Den Heuvel represented EARTH as the holding company for his other entities.

4. Beginning by at least March 8, 2011, and continuing through at least August 2015, Van Den Heuvel obtained funds from lenders and investors under materially false pretenses, representations, and promises, including the following:

a. Van Den Heuvel represented and promised that he would use, and had used, the lenders’ and investors’ funds to advance the Green Box operations. In many instances, Van Den Heuvel entered into agreements with lenders and investors that dictated specific uses for the funds, such as the purchase of particular equipment.

b. Van Den Heuvel produced false financial statements that grossly inflated his personal wealth and his companies’ assets, including its intellectual property.

d. Van Den Heuvel falsely claimed to have entered into agreements with major companies when, in truth, Van Den Heuvel never had such agreements or they had been terminated.

e. Van Den Heuvel falsely represented that particular business entities had title and control of property where Green Box operations would occur when, in fact, those entities lacked title and control of the property.

f. Van Den Heuvel provided security interests in the same equipment to multiple investors and lenders, misleading them about the existence and value of their security interests.

5. Soon after receiving funds from lenders or investors, Van Den Heuvel diverted significant portions of the funds to purposes that did not advance the Green Box business plan, let alone the specific uses dictated in funding agreements. In the course of diverting the funding, and to conceal the diversion:

a. Van Den Heuvel opened numerous bank accounts at different financial institutions and in different business entities’ names.

b. Van Den Heuvel made multiple transfers of the funds between the bank accounts.

d. Van Den Heuvel used significant amounts of the lenders and investors’ funds to pay personal expenses, creditors, and legal obligations that were unrelated to the Green Box business plan.

e. Van Den Heuvel also used substantial amounts of the lenders’ and investors’ funds to further promote the scheme. For example, Van Den Heuvel paid employees and consultants to prepare Green Box promotional materials, valuations, and financial statements that were based upon misleading assumptions Van Den Heuvel provided. Van Den Heuvel used those materials to obtain additional loans and investments.

6. As part of the scheme, Van Den Heuvel took steps to conceal how he had misused lenders’ and investors’ funds, lull lenders and investors into a false sense of security, and deter them from taking action to recoup their funds. Such steps included the following:

a. Van Den Heuvel claimed that new investments of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars were imminent, and that he would use those new investments to pay earlier lenders and investors.

b. Van Den Heuvel falsely represented to lenders and investors that their funds had been used for the intended purposes.

c. When lenders or investors questioned why the Green Box operations were not proceeding, Van Den Heuvel provided false excuses and did not reveal that he had diverted much of the funding. …

United States Attorney Gregory J. Haanstad, of the Eastern District of Wisconsin announced that the grand jury indicted Ronald Van Den Heuvel (age: 62) of De Pere, on wire fraud and money laundering charges today. The indictment alleges that Van Den Heuvel fraudulently obtained over $9 million in loans and investments for his eco-friendly “Green Box” business plan but diverted much of the funds to his own purposes.

From 2011 through 2015, Ronald Van Den Heuvel was a businessman in the Green Bay area promoting his Green Box process. The indictment alleges that Van Den Heuvel claimed that the Green Box process could turn post-consumer waste from sources like fast food restaurants completely into usable consumer products and energy. Van Den Heuvel obtained over $9 million in loans and investments, having falsely pledged to use the funds for Green Box operations. Van Den Heuvel spent much of the funds to pay old debts and personal expenses, including a new Cadillac Escalade, pricey Green Bay Packers tickets, and court-ordered support payments to his ex-wife.

As alleged in the indictment, Van Den Heuvel defrauded a range of victims, including individual acquaintances, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC), a Canadian private investment firm, and Chinese investors in the EB-5 immigrant investor program. In October 2011, the WEDC provided Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, one of Van Den Heuvel’s companies, with a loan of $1,116,000. The funds were to be used solely to purchase certain equipment to allow for the creation of 116 jobs in a Green Box operation in De Pere, Wisconsin. Instead, Van Den Heuvel diverted large amounts of WEDC funding to his own ends and then submitted false certifications claiming to have spent the funds properly. In addition, in January 2012, the WEDC awarded Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC with a $95,500 grant to reimburse the company for the costs of training new workers. To draw the grant funds, Van Den Heuvel submitted fraudulent time records for training that never happened.

Separately, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced today that it filed a civil lawsuit against Van Den Heuvel and Green Box Detroit, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The SEC alleges that Van Den Heuvel violated securities laws by defrauding the Canadian investment firm and EB-5 investors. The case is United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ronald Van Den Heuvel and Green Box NA Detroit, LLC, Case No. 17-CV-1261.

Counts One to Ten of the indictment charge Van Den Heuvel with executing the scheme to defraud by use of interstate wire communications, in violation of Title 18, United States Code § 1343. On each of these counts, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for not more than twenty years, a fine of not more than $250,000, or both, plus a mandatory $100 special assessment and a period of supervised release not to exceed three years.

Counts Eleven through Fourteen charge Van Den Heuvel with unlawful financial transactions involving the ill-gotten gains, in violation of Title 18, United States Code § 1957. On each of these counts, a convicted defendant would face imprisonment for not more than 5 years, a fine of not more than $250,000, or both, plus the mandatory $100 special assessment and a term of supervised release not to exceed three years.

The criminal case leading to the indictment is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The case will be prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Mel S. Johnson, Matthew D. Krueger, and Rebecca L. Taibleson.

An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

and Wally’s sons Andy Hilliard & Daniel Hilliard’s business partner Ron Van Den Heuvel knew all along that his EARTH / GREEN BOX ‘waste-to-energy’ & ‘plastics-to-oil’ fraud schemes were never going to work nor be profitable and were instead doomed for failure, why go to all the trouble of organizing garbage and dairy/human sludge transportation routes across the U.S., Canada, Africa, and China?

And why did WI Gov. Scott Walker’s Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. / WEDC continue inviting Ron Van Den Heuvel on ‘trade trips’ to Asia & Africa even after authorities suspected that Green Box NA was a “Ponzi scheme or check-kiting organization” as stated on the record by Fmr. WEDC Board Member & WI State Senator Julie Lassa?

Godfrey & Kahn: So we understand, as you sit here today, you don’t know of any writing evidencing the understanding we’ve been referring to, and you’re going to le me know if your understanding is incorrect by reviewing e-mails so that the next time we meet, you can deny your understanding if it turns out you’re mistaken, correct?

Ron Van Den Heuvel: Incorrect. The bank documents and the two resolutions from the shareholders and the board of directors definitely says I cannot buy anybody out without paying them in full.

G&K: Is there anything — any board of directors or members vote or writing evidencing an understanding between you and the members of Evergreen Development, LLC, to renew the promissory notes until the assets of Evergreen are sold?

RVDH: Other than the fact it just keeps happening. They understand. But no, I don’t think anything’s in writing. …

G&K: Is it your testimony then that you had an understanding with the Hilliard Limited Partnership that it would agree to renew the promissory note represented in Exhibit 1 until such time as the assets of Evergreen Development, LLC, were sold?

RVDH: Yes.

G&K: Okay. Was that ever put in writing?

RVDH: I’m not sure.

G&K: When was that understanding reached with Hilliard Limited Partnership?

RVDH: I talked to the guys many a time. And when we turned it from stock to a note, that was the understanding. I mean, they wanted on their balance sheet a note instead of stock so that they could value it, and I agreed to do it through an arm’s length transaction with full awareness that there was no way to pay it until the assets were sold and that I would work very diligently to sell the assets and not receive a wage from either one of the companies. I agreed to it.

G&K: With whom on behalf of Hilliard Limited Partnership did you reach this understanding to renew the promissory note represented by Exhibit 1?

RVDH: Mostly with Dan Hilliard, but I did talk to Neal Maccoux several times on it also.

G&K: And what role does Dan Hilliard play with Hilliard Limited Partnership?

RVDH: I don’t know.

G&K: Okay.

RVDH: He works for me though.

Starting page 77 of transcript marked Exhibit B from the above link:

Godfrey & Kahn: Did you discuss the compromise and settlement with Andy — Andy Hilliard’s father at all?

Ron Van Den Heuvel: Well, I didn’t. I said —I told him we had a tough situation going forward and financing was tough in this market; but I do believe that I used the term your boys are comfortable now that no assets will be sold underneath them without them being paid in full and/or that I’m diligently working hard and its a real project? And I showed him the off-take agreement signed by the Kraft family and Wassau Paper. They were fairly — I think everybody is very comfortable that this deal is progressing as fast as possible.

G&K: Did you have a conversation with the senior Hilliard regarding the compromise and settlement referred to in paragraph 12 of your answer?

RVDH: The only thing I said to them is we came apart with a mortgage that should satisfy any issues that they had. I didn’t get into specifics. Wally and I were friends for a long time. I used to do all of his work, built all of his buildings as an architect, and did electrical work for him for years.

G&K: Did the Hilliard Limited Partnership agreement sign anything in writing documenting the compromise and settlement referred to in paragraph 12 of you answer?

RVDH: The only evidence I have that they did is they recorded the mortgage. So I don’t really have anything signed by them back because they always bring things for me to sign back to them and then they accepted it because they took the mortgage and filed it. So the mortgage went to them a couple times back and forth, and they wanted to talk about it and this and that. Finally, they agreed; and then shortly after they agreed they filed the mortgage.

G&K: When you say they agreed, who communicated to you that the Hilliard Limited Partnership agreed to the compromise and settlement contained in paragraph 12 of the answer?

RVDH: Well, Dan negotiated or I shouldn’t say negotiated. Dan is the one who told me that they agreed, and basically a couple different times he said the mortgage was a good idea, and I know Dan is inside of our group working as hard as anybody to get this closed.